No, Trump can’t get a Mexican American judge recused just because Trump wants to ‘build a wall’ to exclude illegal immigrants By Eugene Volokh

[Luis Gonzalez]

Pick any one:
1 His relationship with the prosecuting Attorneys firm that is a heavy Democrat Donor and hired Hillary for hundreds of Thousands to speak at their firm.
2. His Being a senior Board member of a group giving out Scholarships to Illegals,
3. His Rulings where he refused to dismiss a case with no Plaintiff because she withdrew,
4. His Membership in a La Raza Lawyers Group that links to and co-mingles with the the La Raza Councel including cross linking their web sites and shared community projects.
5. He on his own initiative without it being before him advised the Plaintiffs attorneys to add RICO charges.

Any one triggers Canon 2.

The more people learn of this, and the Media is ineffective at keeping this suppressed, the worse the back lash will be and the better for Trump it will be.

In your mind.

There is nothing there that would rise to the level of impropriety. Your disapproval notwithstanding.

Why aren't we discussing Trimp U and the massive documented fraud in which Dear Leader had direct involvement in?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Nobody can "order" a recuse correct? It's supposed to be the judge's own decision correct? IANAL.

Judges live under the threat of impeachment, which is what is supposed to keep them in line.

[Oceander]

In your mind.

There is nothing there that would rise to the level of impropriety. Your disapproval notwithstanding.

Why aren't we discussing Trimp U and the massive documented fraud in which Dear Leader had direct involvement in?

Because the last thing Trump supporters want to do is own up to the cold hard facts.  They'd much rather continue wallowing in the orange mud. 

[Oceander]

Nobody can "order" a recuse correct? It's supposed to be the judge's own decision correct? IANAL.

Judges live under the threat of impeachment, which is what is supposed to keep them in line.

An appeals court can determine that the judge should have disqualified herself under 455, and if appropriate send the case back to be heard by another judge.  Whether a judge should recuse himself is reviewed for an abuse of discretion normally, which generally means the judge's decision is upheld. 

[Gov Bean Counter]

Bump

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

An appeals court can determine that the judge should have disqualified herself under 455, and if appropriate send the case back to be heard by another judge.  Whether a judge should recuse himself is reviewed for an abuse of discretion normally, which generally means the judge's decision is upheld.

Ok, looks like you know what you're talking about. "Conflict of interest" usually means will the Judge personally benefit in some tangible (monetary) way, correct? Politics (like what Trump is talking about) are generally not considered, as all judges were either appointed by Democrats or Republicans, and approved by the Senate by the same.

[Oceander]

Ok, looks like you know what you're talking about. "Conflict of interest" usually means will the Judge personally benefit in some tangible (monetary) way, correct? Politics (like what Trump is talking about) are generally not considered, as all judges were either appointed by Democrats or Republicans, and approved by the Senate by the same.

The broader issue is appearance of impropriety, not just conflict of interest, although that is subsumed into it.  But it requires a hypothetical disinterested observer who knows all the facts, including the entire record of the case, to make the determination.  An ardent political supporter's view that the judge was not impartial doesn't count.  Mechanicos is NOT the test for whether impropriety exists. 

On the other hand, because it's up to him to prove the point, to prove the existence of impropriety requiring recusal, and not my job to prove there wasn't (I.e., no presumptions of impropriety that I have to rebut), the fact that I too am politically biased is not relevant.  It's my job to hold his feet to the fire until he proves his case, or fails, as he has here.  It's not my job to prove anything independently; all I need do is show he lacks proof. 

[RoosGirl]

The broader issue is appearance of impropriety, not just conflict of interest, although that is subsumed into it.  But it requires a hypothetical disinterested observer who knows all the facts, including the entire record of the case, to make the determination.  An ardent political supporter's view that the judge was not impartial doesn't count.  Mechanicos is NOT the test for whether impropriety exists. 

On the other hand, because it's up to him to prove the point, to prove the existence of impropriety requiring recusal, and not my job to prove there wasn't (I.e., no presumptions of impropriety that I have to rebut), the fact that I too am politically biased is not relevant.  It's my job to hold his feet to the fire until he proves his case, or fails, as he has here.  It's not my job to prove anything independently; all I need do is show he lacks proof.

Not necessarily for this specific case, but in general whether it is appropriate for a judge that, if it could be proved, were part of a committee granting scholarships to illegals, is that not cause for removal from position?

[Oceander]

Not necessarily for this specific case, but in general whether it is appropriate for a judge that, if it could be proved, were part of a committee granting scholarships to illegals, is that not cause for removal from position?

No.  You have to show something more than just a broad based relationship with some organizations that might be opposed to the interests of one of the parties.  Shared political, religious, or other affiliations with parties are generally not sufficient to require recusal.  Disqualification is not required, for example, where the judge and one of the parties in the case shared a partisan political affiliation in a politically charged case.  Higganbotham v. Oklahoma, 328 F.3d 638 (10th Cir. 2003).  That case had a much closer relationship between the judge and the political issue involved than between Trump and this judge's participation in some nonprofit that allocates scholarships to people whom Donald Trump does not like. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not necessarily for this specific case, but in general whether it is appropriate for a judge that, if it could be proved, were part of a committee granting scholarships to illegals, is that not cause for removal from position?

California law not only allows illegal aliens to attend college, but grants them access to in-state tuition rates.

Why then would granting scholarships to illegals be improper in California?

[RoosGirl]

No.  You have to show something more than just a broad based relationship with some organizations that might be opposed to the interests of one of the parties.  Shared political, religious, or other affiliations with parties are generally not sufficient to require recusal.  Disqualification is not required, for example, where the judge and one of the parties in the case shared a partisan political affiliation in a politically charged case.  Higganbotham v. Oklahoma, 328 F.3d 638 (10th Cir. 2003).  That case had a much closer relationship between the judge and the political issue involved than between Trump and this judge's participation in some nonprofit that allocates scholarships to people whom Donald Trump does not like.

Either you are not understanding my question or I am not understanding your answer.  I was curious about any judge that is on part of a committee that gives money to illegal aliens to attend school in the US.

[Cyber Liberty]

Either you are not understanding my question or I am not understanding your answer.  I was curious about any judge that is on part of a committee that gives money to illegal aliens to attend school in the US.

As @Luis Gonzalez mentioned above, while the recipient of financial assistance may be illegal, the act of granting the aid is not in many states like California (and AZ, I might add).  The case cannot be made the Judge is abetting an illegal act.

[RoosGirl]

As @Luis Gonzalez mentioned above, while the recipient of financial assistance may be illegal, the act of granting the aid is not in many states like California (and AZ, I might add).  The case cannot be made the Judge is abetting an illegal act.

@Luis Gonzalez
@Cyber Liberty

Thank you.  I missed that.  Absolute insanity.

[Oceander]

Either you are not understanding my question or I am not understanding your answer.  I was curious about any judge that is on part of a committee that gives money to illegal aliens to attend school in the US.

That would be a completely different issue and would have no bearing on whether the judge should recuse himself in Trump's case.  One could certainly try to file an ethics complaint against the judge for participating in conduct that disrespects the institutions of law, but that has nothing to do with the judges impartiality toward Trump's case.  And, in any event, if Trump were to file such a complaint it would almost certainly be dismissed by the ethics board as an attempt by Trump to get an unfair advantage.

[RoosGirl]

That would be a completely different issue and would have no bearing on whether the judge should recuse himself in Trump's case.  One could certainly try to file an ethics complaint against the judge for participating in conduct that disrespects the institutions of law, but that has nothing to do with the judges impartiality toward Trump's case.  And, in any event, if Trump were to file such a complaint it would almost certainly be dismissed by the ethics board as an attempt by Trump to get an unfair advantage.

Thank you.  I wasn't necessarily trying to relate it to this case.  But, since it has come up with respect to this judge, I just wondered what, if anything, could be done regarding any judge that breaks federal immigration law, or at least aids in breaking federal immigration law.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Pick any one:
1 His relationship with the prosecuting Attorneys firm that is a heavy Democrat Donor and hired Hillary for hundreds of Thousands to speak at their firm.
2. His Being a senior Board member of a group giving out Scholarships to Illegals,
3. His Rulings where he refused to dismiss a case with no Plaintiff because she withdrew,
4. His Membership in a La Raza Lawyers Group that links to and co-mingles with the the La Raza Councel including cross linking their web sites and shared community projects.
5. He on his own initiative without it being before him advised the Plaintiffs attorneys to add RICO charges.

Any one triggers Canon 2.

The more people learn of this, and the Media is ineffective at keeping this suppressed, the worse the back lash will be and the better for Trump it will be.

Let's pay closer attention to your talking points.

1. If this Judge having an association with a Hillary donor brings his ability to be an impartial judge under suspicion, why then does the fact that Donald Trump (and his son) were direct donors to not only Hillary Clinton's Senatorial campaign, but Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's. He also donated $100K to the immensely corrupt Clinton Foundation and $50K to Rahm Emmanuel's campaign.

Why do those actions not disqualify Trump from running as the GOP candidate?

2. The Judge is a Senior member of a group that gives out scholarships to Hispanic students, not to illegal aliens. The fact that some of those students may be illegal aliens is irrelevant, since California law allows for illegal aliens to attend college, and it is not the Judge's responsibility to enforce Federal immigration laws.

3. If someone has an issue with that, the issue wuld have been brought forward.

4. He belongs to an ethnic legal society, much like the IABANY (Irish American Bar Association of New York) or the AAJLA (American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists). Nothing to do with the extremist La Raza., except that perhaps the exist in the same Universe.

5. Judge Curiel did nothing wrong. https://popehat.com/2016/06/01/lawsplainer-is-there-anything-unusual-about-judge-curiels-orders-in-the-trump-university-case/

[Luis Gonzalez]

Either you are not understanding my question or I am not understanding your answer.  I was curious about any judge that is on part of a committee that gives money to illegal aliens to attend school in the US.

He gives money to Hispanic students to attend school. The group does not single out illegal aliens to award monies to, but the immigration status of the students is irrelevant since California law allows for them to attend classes and get in-State tuition rates. It is not up to the group to ascertain the immigration status of those they award scholarships to, since it is irrelevant in the State. It is also not their responsibility to enforce Federal Immigration Laws not being enforced by either the State or Federal governments.

[thatcher]

This is one of the most bizarre things I have read in quite a while.  Good for him for providing scholarship money to an illegal?  Wow.

So glad that you are open and educable when confronted with the facts. Maybe there are more out there...

[RoosGirl]

So glad that you are open and educable when confronted with the facts. Maybe there are more out there...

What facts are you talking about?

[thatcher]

What facts are you talking about?

Uhh, the back and forth you just had with the very erudite legal experts. Have a feeling you're still looking for the evil La Raza Aztlan angle to fall back on.

[Oceander]

Thank you.  I wasn't necessarily trying to relate it to this case.  But, since it has come up with respect to this judge, I just wondered what, if anything, could be done regarding any judge that breaks federal immigration law, or at least aids in breaking federal immigration law.

If, as Luis says, it's not illegal to grant illegal aliens tuition scholarships, then the judge isn't involved in anything illegal.  That means at bottom there isn't any basis on which to challenge the judge.

[RoosGirl]

Uhh, the back and forth you just had with the very erudite legal experts. Have a feeling you're still looking for the evil La Raza Aztlan angle to fall back on.

I wasn't sure if you were talking about what you said, that I commented was bizarre.  I'm really not "looking for" anything, just trying to get an understanding of the process.  I do find it unbelievable that it is perfectly within the law to provide money to an illegal to attend a US university.  Florida provides in-state tuition prices for illegals too.  It is one of the few things that Rick Scott has done that I severely disagree with, perhaps enough to not vote for him again.

[Mechanicos]

I don't think so.  You quoted the statute, but no case law construing the statute.  Try this:  "it is intolerable for a litigant, without any factual basis, to suggest that a judge cannot be impartial because of his or her race and political background."  Macdraw, Inc. v. CIT Group, 157 F.3d 956, 963 (2d Cir. 1998) (no recusal required for Asian judge even though defendant had been publicly critical of a prominent Asian).

Uninformed speculation and criticism - even if widely reported in the media - do not trigger disqualification under sec. 445(a).  U.S. v. Bayless, 201 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2000).  The need for disqualification "is to be determined 'not by considering what a straw poll of the only partly informed man-in-the-street would show but by examining the record facts and the law, and then deciding whether a reasonable person knowing and understanding all the relevant facts would recuse the judge.'"  U.S. v. Bayless at 127.  The "reasonable person" is an "objective, disinterested observer" who is privy to full knowledge of the surrounding circumstances.  U.S. v. Bayless at 126.

None, I repeat none, of the requirements have been established, most especially not by you. 

Now sit down and stfu.

No counselor, I also provided a PDF Brief on that statute with HUNDREDS of case cites and it proves me right. You got just got rule 50'd so you sit down and shut it.

[Mechanicos]

Let's pay closer attention to your talking points.

1. If this Judge having an association with a Hillary donor brings his ability to be an impartial judge under suspicion, why then does the fact that Donald Trump (and his son) were direct donors to not only Hillary Clinton's Senatorial campaign, but Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's. He also donated $100K to the immensely corrupt Clinton Foundation and $50K to Rahm Emmanuel's campaign.

Why do those actions not disqualify Trump from running as the GOP candidate?

Because Trump is not subject to Judical Canon 2, This Judge is.

2. The Judge is a Senior member of a group that gives out scholarships to Hispanic students, not to illegal aliens. The fact that some of those students may be illegal aliens is irrelevant, since California law allows for illegal aliens to attend college, and it is not the Judge's responsibility to enforce Federal immigration laws.

Its illegal under federal law and Trump has promised to punish sanctuary cities and enforce the law. That means this Judge could become personally liable since hes a Federal Judge and knows Federal law preempts State law. So what he did was illegal under federal law. That's  a direct conflict of interest if Trump becomes president.

3. If someone has an issue with that, the issue wuld have been brought forward.

Why would they rush it, The longer this goes on the more damage to this judge and the more benefit to Trump.

4. He belongs to an ethnic legal society, much like the IABANY (Irish American Bar Association of New York) or the AAJLA (American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists). Nothing to do with the extremist La Raza., except that perhaps the exist in the same Universe.

That has cross links and activities and uses the same name as the Mexican Reconquest movement. 

5. Judge Curiel did nothing wrong. https://popehat.com/2016/06/01/lawsplainer-is-there-anything-unusual-about-judge-curiels-orders-in-the-trump-university-case/

Opinions are nothing more then smoke. Mean nothing.

[Mechanicos]

If, as Luis says, it's not illegal to grant illegal aliens tuition scholarships, then the judge isn't involved in anything illegal.  That means at bottom there isn't any basis on which to challenge the judge.

Counselor. IT IS ILLEGAL under federal law and federal law preempts State law. That means if Trump becomes president and enforces the federal laws involving illegals this Judge could become personally liable. That's a direct conflict of interest.