I know very little about the Trump University judge or if he’s biased against Trump. From what I know, I think the lawsuit is weak, but probably not a summary judgment candidate, contra non-lawyer Trump.
That said, isn’t it the left and Justice Sotomayor who said, “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…”?
In other words, does one’s ethnic background influence judging or not? And, if not, then why does the left fall over itself in celebrating every time a woman or a non-white takes over a judicial position that has heretofore been the domain overwhelmingly of white males? We’re clutching our pearls regarding Trump’s comments, when the actual President of the United States said–regarding Judge Merrick–“Yeah, he’s a white guy, but he’s a really outstanding jurist. Sorry.” You see for today’s Democratic Party, appointing a white man is something one must apologize for.
The left has traded in ethnic and identity politics for decades. Now Trump is trading in white identity politics. And if identity politics matter in order to make people fair and sympathetic and all the rest, on what principled basis can one say Trump’s line of critique is wrong, other than it’s coming from a dreaded white male?
Let’s face it, it is not exactly a crazy idea someone in the National Council for La Raza might, you know, not like someone running for President in large part against the ethnic chauvinist claims of la raza. But the liberal media–and the liberal official conservative opposition–wants us to forget all the ethnic determinist claims used to promote non-whites against white males in the name of diversity.
I actually have a moderate position. I think background may affect someone’s sympathies and perspective, but judging is largely technical in nature. Thus, a male judge can judge a woman. A white can judge a black. A guy who did plaintiff’s work can rule for defendants. But if one is not committed by one’s personal ethical code and professional training to neutrality, fairness, and blind justice, it all falls apart. And legal education these days encourages that cynical devolution of judging from its old ideals of blind justice and the search for correct legal answers.
The legal realist or progressive philosophies increasingly drilled into lawyers in law school claim objectivity is not even possible, it’s always a sham, and thus one should fight for leftist causes (and one’s tribe), because that’s what everyone does, even the self-described technicians. I’ve written about this here.
In other words, genuinely conservative and originalist judges can be objective and ethnicity does not matter terribly to outcomes among those who share that philosophy, but, for the left, their ethnic and social justice views infect everything they do. Thus, as in other arenas, white tribalism is becoming necessary as a matter of self-defense in an increasingly divided and tribal world.