by Mark Angelides
Recent court verdicts by judges have shown us that they apparently have the power to overrule both presidents and Prime Ministers. And of course, a stable nation state needs checks and balances on Executive power, but why is it such a “horror” to suggest that judges may be politically motivated; they are not the beacons of light to guide us in our moral darkness, they are politically appointed by politicians with a political agenda who feel their agenda will be better served by having said judge in place.
Two recent cases and rulings show the politicization of the judicial class:
Judge: Derrick Watson
Appointed By: Barrack Obama in 2013
Ruling: Granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) against key parts of President Trump’s executive order on immigration.
Questions: Obama is attempting to frustrate Trump’s policies; he goes to Hawaii (possibly meets with the judge?) and the most likely judge to follow suit is called upon to hear the case. Why are specific judges selected to hear cases? If they are all impartial and swayed only by evidence, then surely any judge could hear the case and come to the same decision. If this is not the case, then there is a clear case of bias. Couldn’t a judge who was not Obama’s old school friend have heard the case?
Judge: Gonzalo Curiel
Appointed By: Barack Obama in 2012 (Federal)
Ruling: He presided over two legal cases, one against Trump University and the other a RICO case against Donald Trump himself.
Questions: When Donald trump asked if he could really be impartial, the media took this as a sign of racism, but Judge Curiel was (and is) a member of the National Hispanic Bar Association (NHBA), which in 2015 stated that:
Donald Trump’s disrespect of such a large segment of the population of America is not only unbelievable, but outright wrong. His comment that Mexico only sends rapists and criminals to the United States reveals a racist nature that cannot and will not go unnoticed by the Hispanic National Bar Association nor the Latino community.
Those who seek our highest public office should attempt to engage all Americans, not divide us. His comments are clearly divisive and racist and do nothing to promote equality and justice for all. Trump’s statements reveal a bias that all Americans should reject and respond to accordingly. We cannot stand silent and allow Trump to promote such racist and discriminatory behavior. This is the time for all Americans to take a stand against his insensitive, offensive and untrue statements.
The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants. We salute NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s and take similar actions against Donald Trump’s business interests. We can and will make a difference.
With this kind of statement, how can he be impartial? If you are calling for a boycott on someone’s business, can you really stand in fair, impartial judgment?
As of now, there is no better system in place, the rule of law, judges and juries combine to make one of the best and fairest legal systems the world has ever known, but still there are problems. And these problems will never be solved if we are shouted down whenever we question the bias of judges. We should question perceived bias because judges are humans, if they cannot empathize or understand the subtleties of human nature, then they have no right to stand in judgment. Political appointment of judges inevitably leads to politicized judges; it’s not a hard concept to grasp.
by Mark Angelides