NewsWithViews on Pinterest NewsWithViews on Google+

Additional Titles


Homosexuals, Liberals and Lawyers Attack Boy Scouts of America



Grants Pass









By Attorney Rees Lloyd
June 13, 2016

The hypocrisy of the attacks on Donald Trump for criticizing the perceived bias of an Hispanic (Mexican-American) federal judge appointed by Obama who was a member of the race-based "La Raza ("The Race") Lawyers Assn. of San Diego," needs to be repudiated by the American citizens that judge serves, lawyers, politically correct politicians and media pundits preening their political correctness -- and by the federal judge himself.

In a fact-filled, truth-filled column, Ann Coulter details the hypocrisy of the hysterical denunciations of Trump for questioning whether this judge's allegiance to "La Raza" is influencing his decisions in the Trump University case, and criticizing that judge for not recusing himself given his membership in the La Raza Lawyers Association. (Ann Coulter's column is available here).

I concur. The attacks on Trump are, in my view as a Civil Rights lawyer for more than thirty years, utterly hypocritical. I base this on the undeniable fact that for decades "White" judges (and jurors and prosecutors and police) have been repeatedly attacked and their decisions criticized with express citations to the fact that they are "White."

Why shouldn't this Hispanic judge be treated like a White judge? The fact is, all judges, including Hispanic and other non-White judges, are unelected, unaccountable, politically-connected political appointees, who are subject to criticism just as is any other governmental office holder.

Judges are not a high-priesthood to which we citizens are required to genuflect, and never criticize or question. They are politicians by-any-other-name. It is just easier for these lawyers to get appointed to government office, i.e., judgeships, by appropriate political donations to the right party and the right political connections, then it is to get elected.

If any citizen would criticize any politician in any elected office, or any bureaucrat in any appointed office, then that citizen should feel free to criticize any judge, no matter their race, and including questioning whether their decisions are influenced by their race. Otherwise, we citizens are but serfs or subjects quivering with fear under the tyranny of judicial mystic. After all, they are nothing but political appointees; lawyers in dresses. Never should a citizen quake before a man who goes to work in a dress.

Although Donald Trump was not my first choice, I give Trump, as a public figure, newly minted political office seeker, and presumptive nominee for the Presidency, credit for having the courage to eschew political correctness and to publicly criticize this federal judge for perceived bias and failure to recuse himself from the Trump University litigation while being a member of a Hispanic racialist organization, the La Raza Lawyers Association.

Why should Trump or any American fear to publicly question the impartiality of a judge who is a member of an organization which has in its very name a racial identification, "La Raza," and is not shy in proclaiming "Viva La Raza!" (Long Live The Race!)"? If he was White and a member of the KKK Lawyers Association, would the politicians, media mavens, and the politically-correct thought police rush to condemn Trump for questioning whether the Judge's race influenced his decisions?

I was one of the attorneys for Cesar Chavez in California for some twenty years. He was proud of his Mexican heritage, but never once did I ever hear him identify himself as "Raza," or join in crying "Viva La Raza!" On the contrary, Cesar Chavez, a great, third-generation American of Mexican descent, a WWII veteran who joined the Navy at 17 and served for the duration in defense of his country, the United States, and was the moral heart of the American labor movement, expressly told me he wouldn't use the term "La Raza" because he considered it "racist."

Why, then, this rush of politicians and media to defend this Hispanic judge from criticism and questioning as to whether his decisions are influenced by his race? There is no similar rush to defend White judges, prosecutors, police, or jurors, when they are questioned, criticized, and attacked as "White" by the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Black Lies Matter, anti-Trump "Viva La Raza!" rioters waving Mexican Flags and burning the U.S. Flag, or other race-baiting non-White racialist individuals or organizations. Isn't that "racist"?

Manifestly, this federal judge was appointed by President Obama to his life-tenured federal judgeship not despite being Hispanic but because he is Hispanic. This is true, too, concerning Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, who was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Obama not on merit, but because she is Puerto Rican, and an activist leader of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund.

Indeed, Sotomayor, herself, described herself as an "affirmative action baby" upon her nomination, admitting that throughout her college and post-college career her peers exceeded her in performance.

Sotomayor also famously stated that because she is a Hispanic female, in her words, a "wise Latina," she likely make better decisions than "white" judges. Nobody called her a "racist," or Obama for appointing her based on her race.

End this hypocrisy. Judges are no more to be immune from criticism by citizens, including whether their decisions are influenced by their race, ethnicity, or gender, than are members of Congress or the President of the U.S. "Hispanic" or other non-White judges are not entitled to special treatment because of their race. Neither is the President, who has ruled by race from the White House for seven long years--all of them downhill, while the media and politicians cringe before criticizing him for his obvious race-based governance.

It has long been a maxim of the law that: "The appearance of evil is as damaging to the institution of justice as is actual evil."

It is that standard, avoiding even the "appearance" of bias, that is to be followed by judges in recusing themselves in order to protect the institution of justice.

Under that standard, this federal judge, knowing he was a member of a race-based, race-advocacy organization of lawyers, should have recused himself in the Trump litigation. He should not be able to hide behind his Hispanic race to shield himself from criticism for that failure.

If this judge wants to involve himself in a race-based, race-promoting, organization, so be it. But, having done so, he cannot attack as "racists" citizens like Trump, or like me for this commentary, who question publicly whether his failure to recuse himself is improper. Nor does he have the right to hide behind his Hispanicity to be shielded from criticism which all other politicians, let alone mere mortals like us citizens, are subject. Indeed, does any reader of this commentary doubt that one or more readers are certain to attack it on the basis that I am "White," no matter that I was in the trenches of the Civil Rights Movement when they were not?

In short, this Hispanic federal judge's membership in an organization racially identifying itself as "La Raza" creates at least an "appearance" of bias. That he is "Hispanic" does not immunize him from criticism by Trump or any citizen, any more than a white judge who maintains a membership in the "KKK Lawyers Association" could claim "racism" if his or her impartiality was questioned because of that membership.

Enough of this hypocrisy. We are citizens, not "serfs" groveling under judges who perceive themselves as modern Feudal Lords to whom all must kowtow, and none must criticize. These Lords of the Judiciary, perched in benches above mere mortals, requiring citizens to address them as "Your Honor" upon pain of contempt citation, are in reality naught but politically-ambitious, politically-connected lawyers in dresses.

Its time to take away their black "robes" (i.e., dresses); take them off their high courtroom perches and put them not above but on the same level as the citizens over whom they sit in judgment; and end their demand to be addressed as "Your Honor" even when they have none, and subject them to the same scrutiny, questioning and criticism as any other holder of public office purporting to be a "public servant."

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts

*required field

When one of them associates himself or herself with an organization promoting one race, instead of the human race, citizens, like Trump, should not cower from publicly criticizing and questioning them for at minimum creating the "appearance" of race-based bias, as has the "La Raza" Judge in the Trump case. He cannot cannot be shielded from criticism or questioning by Trump or other citizens because he is an "Hispanic" rather than "White" judge. That is itself the very racial discrimination which the judiciary should be ending, not perpetuating.

For God And Country Forever; Surrender to Tyranny--Including Judicial Tyranny -- Never!

Click here to visit home page.

2015 Rees Lloyd - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing


Rees Lloyd, a one time ACLU staff attorney, is the co-founder and director of the Defense of Veterans Memorial Project of the American Legion Dept. of California, and a member of the Victoria Taft Blogforce.

A longtime civil rights attorney and veterans activist whose work has been honored by, among others, the California Senate and Assembly, and numerous civil rights, workers rights, and veterans rights organizations. He has testified as a constitutional expert at hearings before the U.S. House and Senate representing The American Legion.

He has been profiled, and his work featured, by such varied print media as the Los Angeles Times and American Legion Magazine, and such broadcast media as ABC's Nightline and 20/20, Fox News In The Morning, and, among others, by Hannity. His writings have appeared in a variety of national, regional, and local newspaper, magazine, and other publications. He is a frequent radio commentator, and a sought after speaker.*

[*For identification only. The views expressed here are solely Rees Lloyd's and not necessarily any person, entity or organization he may otherwise represent. ]




Its time to take away their black "robes" (i.e., dresses); take them off their high courtroom perches and put them not above but on the same level as the citizens over whom they sit in judgment...