“If judges aren’t seen as impartial, the public will lose faith in the rule of law.” – (Alberto R. Gonzalez)
Sorry General Gonzalez, that ship has already sailed.
In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Alberto Gonzalez makes a good case for why Donald Trump may very well be correct in charging the judge presiding over the “Trump University case” with bias. Yesterday we recommended a Clarice Feldman article that referenced a substantial conflict of interest on the part of the judge as regards Trump. Gonzalez analyses the matter more extensively.
But first, a little refresher for readers about Gonzalez’s experience as GW Bush’s Attorney General:
Alberto Gonzalez was victimized by the left and their media allies and forced to resign. Gonzalez, like most every other key member of the Bush administration, became a target for firing 7 federal prosecutors for failing to do their job (they weren’t much into prosecuting vote fraud cases).
This was probably one of the 2 or 3 biggest travesties of the Bush years when the left and the MSM combined with the GWB administration’s unwillingness to defend itself against even the most absurd and unfair attacks.
President Bush had his faults but he was essentially a good man who has enormous respect for America and its values, traditions, and rule of law.
When president Cinton came into office, among the first things he did was to fire all 162 federal prosecutors who had served under the previous GHW Bush administration. An entirely legal action. Clinton appointed a whole new set of federal prosecutors who would be more likely to carry out his wishes in the administration of “justice”.
Bush 43, however, retained the Clinton appointees when he assumed office even though appointment of federal prosecutors is essentially a political act. The seven who Gonzalez fired for what he perceived as cause needed no “cause” for their dismissal but, of course, the media saw an opportunity to join with congressional Democrats to exploit this by initiating an all out propaganda effort which essentially convinced much of the public to think somehow Gonzalez acted wrongly. A big part of the Gonzales must go drum beat was the liberal consensus that a high pro-file conservative Hispanic in the Bush administration must be destroyed lest he be nominated to the Supreme Court. Any pretext would do.
The QC Times dutifully carried out its role, best exemplified with an editorial celebrating Gonzalez’s resignation with the un-original headline, “Heckuva Job, Alberto“.
After Bush of course, the media has not found any instance of “politicization” of the department of justice.
An independent judiciary is extremely important. But that value is not the only one in play here. Equally important, if not more important from my perspective as a former judge and U.S. attorney general, is a litigant’s right to a fair trial. The protection of that right is a primary reason why our Constitution provides for an independent judiciary. If judges and the trials over which they preside are not perceived as being impartial, the public will quickly lose confidence in the rule of law upon which our nation is based. For this reason, ethics codes for judges — including the federal code of conduct governing Curiel — require not only that judges actually be impartial, but that they avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.” That appearance typically is measured from the standpoint of a reasonable litigant.
(snip)
The test is whether there is an “appearance of impropriety” under the facts as they reasonably appear to a litigant in Trump’s position.
(snip)
But there may be other factors to consider in determining whether Trump’s concerns about getting an impartial trial are reasonable. Curiel is, reportedly, a member of a group called La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. Trump’s aides, meanwhile, have indicated that they believe Curiel is a member of the National Council of La Raza, a vocal advocacy organization that has vigorously condemnedTrump and his views on immigration. The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR. But Trump may be concerned that the lawyers’ association or its members represent or support the other advocacy organization. Coupled with that question is the fact that in 2014, when he certified the class-action lawsuit against Trump, Curiel appointed the Robbins Geller law firm to represent plaintiffs. Robbins Geller has paid $675,000 in speaking fees since 2009 to Trump’s likely opponent, Hillary Clinton, and to her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Curiel appointed the firm in the case before Trump entered the presidential race, but again, it might not be unreasonable for a defendant in Trump’s position to wonder who Curiel favors in the presidential election.
DLH
