The Toplofty Judiciary
Mukasey, Michael: Trump, The Judiciary And Identity Politics, WSJ, 6/10/16
Trump well justifiably fears that the mistaken trial of Trump University is being used as a criminal means to eliminate his candidacy as represented here by the Federal judge Michael B. Mukasey. Judge Mukasey attempts to defend the integrity of the presiding judge Gonzalo Curiel and the judiciary in general.
(The) judges black robes are supposed to suggest that judges are all the same, that it doesn’t matter -or shouldn’t- whose head is popping up from beneath the crepe. It matters, of course, but the symbolism, inherent in the robe works at least as aspiration.
Donald Trump’s claims may be the dirty underside of what we get when we abandon that aspiration, but they are by no means the whole of it.
The above quote is difficult to understand but as I interpret it judges aspire to objectivity but seldom achieve it. Trumps ‘dirty’ accusations are what you get when you do abandon it. That seems to be an admission that Judge Gonzalo Curiel has traduced his position soiling the crepe out of which his head pops.
At the beginning of the article Judge Mukasey says that: Mr. Trump’s claim against Judge Curiel is both baseless and squalid, however he carefully avoids presenting any evidence that this is so. It is also true that Judge Mukasey is a Jew as he indicates. Apropos of what I don’t know. If anyone reads popular Jewish websites such as Tablet Magazine and the Jewish Daily Forward he will find hysterical article after hysterical article denouncing Trump for one reason or another finally ending in anti-Semite, Nazi and Hitler. Far less than objectivity in my book.
We are not clear then how far Judge Mukasey excludes this endemic Jewish fear and loathing, even hatred, from his own Judaic psyche or not. After all his article is really a hit piece discrediting Trump and approving his colleague Judge Curiel.; not that I think judges might stick together. because if one is discredited all are. This raises the interesting question of the thousands of apparently misjudged cases that our great Constitutional scholar and accomplished attorney Barack Obama is overturning. Is Obama pointing his middle finger at the entire judiciary including judges Coriel and Mukasey? I ask you.
After all, possible Supreme Court Judge Obama might easily be appointed in Justice Scalia’s stead if his endorsed choice Hillary Clinton becomes president in January. He would be the second case of a former president being made a Supreme Court Justice following in the footsteps of William Howard Taft. What would be more fitting than that this great president should become a great jurist for the next forty years? I ask you.
As a legal scholar and attorney is Mr. Obama mistaken in overturning thousands of legal decisions made by, one presumes, White or Jewish judges who to reference the wise Latina Sotomayor had no racial empathy for the misprisoned men who are all black. With a little more empathy on the part of their judges perhaps these thousands might never have had to spend a night in jail.
While not a lawyer, remember the Black mayor of Baltimore who empathized with the Black rioters so well that she said: Nay, stop them not. Let those that need to riot riot. And so they did. None of those rioters were arrested. Others who had the need to destroy and loot did so with the same approval from the mayor. That’s empathy for you.
Let us ask then, how much empathy for a White Donald Trump can a wise Latino like Judge Curiel have? Not much. So if there is no racial empathy such as Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor deems necessary perhaps Judge Curiel should recuse himself and allow another judge with more empathy for Donald Trump judge his case. Trump should have his own man as judge to ensure justice.
To quote from Judge Mukasey again:
Whether or not Judge Curiel would use the “r” word -racist- it would certainly simmer just below the surface. After all, suggesting that a judge would allow his ethnic ancestry to govern his rulings is simply unacceptable in America.
Maybe in America but how about in Mexico to which Judge Curiel certainly owes some allegiance. After all Judge Mukasey implies that racial prejudice is ‘simmering’ just under the surface in Judge Curiel’s mind so why shouldn’t it boil over acceptable in America or not?
While Judge Mukasey may be a great jurist I think he has failed to make his point in this more philosophical issue here. Even after his defense of Curiel it still looks like a kangaroo court or star chamber proceeding to this objective observer.
Disclaimer: While White I’m right.