With Donald Trump whining that a judge of Mexican-American heritage is naturally biased against him because he want to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, it opens up some interesting questions.
Foremost, of course, are those raised by U.S. Rep. Filemon Vela Jr. about Trump's "shameful" perception of Hispanics in the United States, a Border Wall, and the questioning of a federal judge's integrity and impartiality.
Vela Jr. said as much and I don't blame him. After all, Trump indirectly is saying that federal judges of Mexican descent cannot be fair and impartial to anyone charged with fraud who happens to advocate a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. And that would include his father the late federal judge.
Having covered cases in federal courts in Brownsville while Fil's dad, Filemon Vela Sr., and Judge Reynaldo Garza, presided on the bench, I can personally state that both bent over backwards to be fair and follow the letter, if not the spirit, of the law. To say that they made decisions based on their ethnicity or cultural descent instead of on the law, is ludicrous.The Republican and Democratic leadership has repudiated Trump's criticism and allegations that federal district judge Gonzalo Curiel is biased against him just because his parents were from Mexico and became naturalized citizens. Curiel was born in Indiana and educated there.
A local legal observer has opined that we don't hear Trump complain that the opponents of President Barack Obama's executive orders to implement the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA).
Under a directive from the secretary of DHS, these parents and youth could be granted a type of temporary permission to stay in the U.S. called “deferred action.” These programs were expected to help up to 4.4 million people, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
But opponents of these executive orders, including the State of Texas, chose to fight these directives in court. And which court did they choose?
They didn't file the lawsuits in Washington, D.C., or Chicago, Ill.
No, they chose Brownsville, Texas and they ended up in the federal District Court headed by Judge Andrew Hanen.
Why Hanen?
Hanen was twice nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush and the opponents of the Obama directives chose his venue very deliberately. In other words, based on his past decisions, they knew they would get a sympathetic ear for their pleas to stop the programs.
And that is exactly what has happened. Today, more than 4.4 million minors and their parents remain in legal limbo facing deportation as the government appeals Hanen's ruling.
In fact, the judge has gone further that that. Claiming that Department of Justice attorneys deliberately lied to him about the program's application, he has ordered that they take legal ethics courses, an order deemed inappropriate and beyond the judiciary's purview.
Should the DOJ lawyers and the immigrants, as Trump is now doing, charge that Hanen is unfair and biased toward them because he is not Hispanic and is naturally biased toward Mexicans? That, everyone would agree, would be patently unfair to Hanen.
But it was in his court that opponents of the wall had to recur for relief while trying to fight its construction and the appropriation of their land. Hanen allowed the Department of Homeland Security to go forward with it despite protests from land owners, environmentalists, and immigration advocates.
Maybe Trump could have his case moved to Brownsville where he could count on the local judge – who is not a Mexican or a Muslim – to hear the case of fraud against him related to his Trump University scam.
3 comments:
Corporate lawyers associated with the judge in question have donated over $600,000 to the Clintons how is this NOT going to raise concerns of fairness ? La RAZA UNIDA ?? I find it curious
Trumps claim of prejudice on behalf of the judge stems from the fact that the judge did not grant Trumps Motion for Summary Judgment. In order for the motion to be granted that judge would have to be convinced that there were no facts in dispute that required evidence to be presented to a jury. The judge felt that the Plaintiffs were entitled to present their case to a jury and there were indeed facts in dispute.
Anytime Trump does not get his way, he cries "unfair" and intimates the judge is prejudiced against him. This is mostly bull shit.
In a sane world, Donald Trump should not be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. But in that sane world, neither should Hillary Clinton. In deciding which one to vote against, I have to decide which one presents less danger to America. I will have to vote against Hillary and for Trump, but it is not because I am a supporter of Trump. Hillary will sell this country out for power and money and I don't think Trump will do that, at least I hope not. Hillary has a long record of being a devious corrupt crook and Trump is just a jerk and ass hole.
I expect that if the case were moved to the local Federal court it would be thrown out post haste.
Post a Comment