The federal judge appointed by Barack Obama presiding over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a latino group that translates to "The Race."
According to a 2014 Annual Dinner and Gala brochure, Judge Gonzalo Curiel was listed as a member of the Scholarship Selection Committee. In the same brochure, the plaintiff law firm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, were listed as sponsors for the event.
While there is no discrepancy for a judge to be involved with a local law association and no proof that Curiel is tied to any radical pro-immigration groups, is it not odd that a judge from a pro-latino group has been appointed in a case with Donald Trump involving millions of dollars?
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says Donald Trump has a right to question the fairness of a judge.
“An independent judiciary is extremely important. But that value is not the only one in play here,” Gonzales wrote in a Saturday op-ed for The Washington Post. "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,” he continued.
In 2001, Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor said that she hopes that Latin and white judges would come to different conclusions in cases.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” she said in a speech.
Many critics believe that Trump, who accuses Curiel of bias, is simply trying to win the case for business reasons and is showing signs of racism.
However, Trump has been making his case for years now, before he even announced his candidacy. In 2014, Trump's legal team said that they planned to appeal any decisions by Curiel because of "animosity toward Mr. Trump and his views."
"It's a disgusting waste of the taxpayers' money to advance the political interests of the attorney general," Alan Garten, the Trump Organization's executive vice president and general counsel said in 2014.
The facts are that judges have leniency and rightfully so. Mandatory decisions and robotic judges lead to dangerous and troublesome government systems. And while no proof has come forward that Curiel has done anything illegal in the Trump University case, he still has the power to deny motions and fatigue Trump's legal team into compliance with his measures. Is it not legal for Trump to challenge a thoughtful proposition? Or should he just lie down and pay the plaintiff? Should Trump change his mentality because of establishment pressure? After all, Speaker Ryan condemned Trump's questioning of Curiel deeming it a "textbook definition of a racist comment."
This represents one the fundamental problems with our country. When someone speaks out for what they believe or fights the government machine, they are then slammed by the media and establishment to apologize and admit racist guilt.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member