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

[Maj. Bill Martin]

"clears any moral/ethical hurdles for individuals who want to assist in that manner."  This is the portion of your statement I disagree with.  It might mean that FedGov isn't going to prosecute them, but relying of FedGov to be our definition of what is moral/ethical is quite dangerous IMO.

I'm talking about the ethical obligation of a judge or public official to comply with the law.  It simply is not unethical for a judge to do something that is expressly permitted by a federal EO, unless that EO has been challenged and stayed pending final resolution.  And that has not happened here.

As far as this issue goes, it looks to me like current federal law prohibits the assistance of illegals.  Prez O has made it clear that his administration will not prosecute anyone that violates that law and as such his administration is issuing these pamphlets (or whatever they are) that are essentially instructing the law breakers on how to continue breaking the law.

As I pointed out, the President does have the legal discretion, under laws passed by Congress, to give waivers to people who are here illegally.  The scope of that power is currently under challenge.  I'd also say that "giving assistance" may not have the meaning to which you are ascribing it.  Taking it literally, that should theoretically prohibit providing, even selling food or water to illegals.  It would criminalize a doctor who provided emergency medical care to anyone here illegally as well.  So I don't think that means what you think it means.

I think the better argument is that the statute makes it illegal to assist someone who is trying to get or stay in this country illegally, in the sense of transporting them, concealing them secretly, etc..  I do not believe it was meant to preclude all actions of any kind that benefit someone who is here illegally. 

I may be wrong about that, but again the point is whether a judge who follows federal guidance and an unclear law is acting unethically.  I just don't believe that do be the case.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

as far as why hes not filing a motion. From what I read he does not have to do anything for many months on this case and the judge is prevented from issuing a gag order here by the position Trump holds.

The trial is not until after the election.  But there are always pre-trial motions, perhaps some discovery, etc., on which the Judge will still be issuing orders.  Wait too long, Trump may be held to have waived his right to challenge for recusal (or a reviewing court will take the case less seriously).

In short, if Trump actually means what he says, then he should file that motion as soon as possible.  The reason he probably won't is that the response of the other side, and the decision, would likely be blistering.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That is actually the entire issue on the case pending regarding Obama's immigration EO's.  Did he exceed the authority granted by Congress, or not?  But again, that really doesn't have anything to do with state's permitting in-state tuition.  That is not part of the court challenge.

The point is that while his EO is in effect, the California law which allows illegal aliens to receive tuition assistance is not illegal per se because it is backed up by an executive Order, which carries "the force of law", having the effect of suspending existing laws by instructing Federal agencies not to enforce them, so the Judge's handing out scholarships to illegal alien students does not rise to the level of either an illegal or improper activity.

Trump is trying to drum up sympathy in a case where he is blatantly guilty of committing fraud, and preparing an excuse to use when his loses the case in court.

[Oceander]

I do not know Trumps mind. But I can speculate. He has millions of followers. The Judge's name is known publicly now and many are curious. A little bit of looking shows the La Raza connection  with the judge. what also will be noticed is the complete and total absence of the media mentioning it and instead focusing on race. The way its also being played its drawing out people who would stab him in the back going forward. They should know better.

as far as why hes not filing a motion. From what I read he does not have to do anything for many months on this case and the judge is prevented from issuing a gag order here by the position Trump holds. So this is a Trump card can be played pretty much anytime for the next few months. But until then it helps with millennials and independents who do not trust media, are social and moderately tech savvy.   

I suspect hes playing Rope a dope again. Hes done it before.

And on EO's Trump has promised to repeal most of Obama's EOs almost immediately. 

So he's going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating this case in front of this judge, creating a case record that will form the basis for future proceedings, in whole or in part, and at the end if he doesn't like the result, then he'll file a motion to recuse.  And if he wins it, then he goes back and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars more to relitigate the case?  Doesn't sound like something a smart business man would do.

And in any event he could very well have some far-off motion denied in the ground that he waived the issue because he never brought it up once he believed he had facts available that would justify it.  You can't really complain about injury from a judges partiality if you had the necessary facts available but then sat on your hands and did nothing while the court system devoted valuable, scarce assets to a case that you now want thrown out and redone, expenses that could have been easily avoided if you had brought the issue up on a timely basis.  Again, not something a smart business man would do.

You don't play rope-a-dope with the court system; otherwise you get slapped down.  And that can come with stiff monetary sanctions as well. 

[Mechanicos]

The trial is not until after the election.  But there are always pre-trial motions, perhaps some discovery, etc., on which the Judge will still be issuing orders.  Wait too long, Trump may be held to have waived his right to challenge for recusal (or a reviewing court will take the case less seriously).

In short, if Trump actually means what he says, then he should file that motion as soon as possible.  The reason he probably won't is that the response of the other side, and the decision, would likely be blistering.

Not worried, the case has no Plaintiff. Its is limbo.

[Oceander]

Not worried, the case has no Plaintiff. Its is limbo.

Doesn't mean a thing.  The matter is still before the judge and is until he dismisses it and closes the case.  If Trump really believed this judge was biased, he would have filed a motion to recuse already.  The fact that he hasn't means he doesn't believe a word of what he's saying.  Pity his gullible supporters who do.

[driftdiver]

It was a simple statement because that was all that was required. EOs do not simply disappear when the issuing president leaves office.  Unless they've been rescinded, expressly, impliedly, or by their own terms, they stick around.  No, they aren't law, but they can have legal consequences, particularly if the order is issued pursuant to broad, generalized powers Congress granted to the president.  In that respect they are neither good nor bad, they simply are. 

But I don't need to get into a deeper discussion of them to simply point out that they don't automatically disappear like snow in the spring.

Oh I agree, sorry I wasn't more clear.   I was directing my comments at @Mechanicos

[Oceander]

Oh I agree, sorry I wasn't more clear.   I was directing my comments at @Mechanicos

No worries. Made me go back and find that CRS publication, which is handy in any event. 

[RoosGirl]

I'm talking about the ethical obligation of a judge or public official to comply with the law.  It simply is not unethical for a judge to do something that is expressly permitted by a federal EO, unless that EO has been challenged and stayed pending final resolution.  And that has not happened here.

As I pointed out, the President does have the legal discretion, under laws passed by Congress, to give waivers to people who are here illegally.  The scope of that power is currently under challenge.  I'd also say that "giving assistance" may not have the meaning to which you are ascribing it.  Taking it literally, that should theoretically prohibit providing, even selling food or water to illegals.  It would criminalize a doctor who provided emergency medical care to anyone here illegally as well.  So I don't think that means what you think it means.

I think the better argument is that the statute makes it illegal to assist someone who is trying to get or stay in this country illegally, in the sense of transporting them, concealing them secretly, etc..  I do not believe it was meant to preclude all actions of any kind that benefit someone who is here illegally. 

I may be wrong about that, but again the point is whether a judge who follows federal guidance and an unclear law is acting unethically.  I just don't believe that do be the case.

When I said assistance I was referring specifically to the case of the judge supplying scholarships to at least one illegal.  I'm not talking about any service provided to meet the basic needs of life.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

This article is 

in this thread

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,210154.msg913195.html#new

is more then enough ammunition to trigger:

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which states explicitly that “Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities.” It isn’t necessary that the judge is actually behaving with impropriety. It is sufficient that his conduct appears improper, something that impairs confidence in the judiciary as a whole, regardless of the judge’s actual motives and conduct.

Both poster and source busted.

Being Mexican American counts as an appearance of impropreity?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The point is that while his EO is in effect, the California law which allows illegal aliens to receive tuition assistance is not illegal per se because it is backed up by an executive Order, which carries "the force of law", having the effect of suspending existing laws by instructing Federal agencies not to enforce them, so the Judge's handing out scholarships to illegal alien students does not rise to the level of either an illegal or improper activity.

Agree completely.

Trump is trying to drum up sympathy in a case where he is blatantly guilty of committing fraud, and preparing an excuse to use when his loses the case in court.

Do you know if he is he an individual defendant in that case?  I had a case like this once, involving "puffing" by a private trade school seeking to entice new students to join.  Complicated as hell simply because of the variety of representations, etc..  And the individual students have to show reliance on specific promises, which they sometimes can't because they continued participating even after becoming aware of the "true" facts.  So it's dicey.

I really don't know the merits of the legal fraud case, but at a minimum, there is certainly a sleaze factor you wouldn't want to see in a Presidential nominee.

[Mechanicos]

The point is that while his EO is in effect, the California law which allows illegal aliens to receive tuition assistance is not illegal per se because it is backed up by an executive Order, which carries "the force of law", having the effect of suspending existing laws by instructing Federal agencies not to enforce them, so the Judge's handing out scholarships to illegal alien students does not rise to the level of either an illegal or improper activity.

Trump is trying to drum up sympathy in a case where he is blatantly guilty of committing fraud, and preparing an excuse to use when his loses the case in court.

Actually no. The scope of an EO is only to federal agencies and its effect here is to say we will not enforce the law. EOs do not apply to states and do not have any effect on law, other then a temporary promise the feds will not enforce the law.  All Laws have to originate in Congress and follow a process.  The only valid law here is the Immigration law. All else is because its being ignored and not enforced.

[Mechanicos]

Doesn't mean a thing.  The matter is still before the judge and is until he dismisses it and closes the case.  If Trump really believed this judge was biased, he would have filed a motion to recuse already.  The fact that he hasn't means he doesn't believe a word of what he's saying.  Pity his gullible supporters who do.

Yes, there is a case before this Judge with no Plaintiff and you think thats OK?

[driftdiver]

Yes, there is a case before this Judge with no Plaintiff and you think thats OK?

Bout as ok as having a fake conservative running.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Executive Order 9066.

A clear and blatant violation of the Constitution's Due Process Clause, was issued by Franklin D. Roosevelt and rescinded by Gerald Ford.

The power of the Executive overrode the Constitution.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes, there is a case before this Judge with no Plaintiff and you think thats OK?

Isn't this a Class Action lawsuit?

[Mechanicos]

Isn't this a Class Action lawsuit?

Yes a Class action where the Designated Plaintiff was so bad it damaged the prosecution and moved to withdraw. In all Class Actions there is a Class Representative/designated plaintiff  who is supposed to be best person in the class to represent the class.  The Court has to approve the Representative. They are having a hard time finding another person in the class that will not be impeached. Trump moved to dismiss because of what happened. The Judge denied the motion.  So here it sits with no Plaintiff and the Judge releasing and then resealing material he was not supposed too release. 

[txradioguy]

Being Mexican American counts as an appearance of impropreity?

It does and you're Trump and you're playing the race card.

If Trump the candidate says stuff like this now against judges he doesn't like...what's he going to say to SCOTUS Judges or other Federal Judges that rule against him if he becomes President.

"Ruth Bader Ginsberg...that JEW!"

"That fat lesbian Elana Keagan"

Etc...etc...etc

[Mechanicos]

It does and you're Trump and you're playing the race card.

If Trump the candidate says stuff like this now against judges he doesn't like...what's he going to say to SCOTUS Judges or other Federal Judges that rule against him if he becomes President.

"Ruth Bader Ginsberg...that JEW!"

"That fat lesbian Elana Keagan"

Etc...etc...etc

Its bad enough the so called conservatives of #neverTrump are supporting the Democrats. Now they are also supporting the Reconquista movement.

[driftdiver]

Its bad enough the so called conservatives of #neverTrump are supporting the Democrats. Now they are also supporting the Reconquista movement.

In what alternate reality is that true?

[Oceander]

In what alternate reality is that true?

The fantasy land of Trump fanbois.

[Oceander]

Its bad enough the so called conservatives of #neverTrump are supporting the Democrats. Now they are also supporting the Reconquista movement.

/snicker

[Jazzhead]

Its bad enough the so called conservatives of #neverTrump are supporting the Democrats. Now they are also supporting the Reconquista movement.

No one's supporting the Reconquista movement.   Lots of us, though, are opposing Trump's racism.   

Here is Bret Stephens,  in today's WSJ:

This is a foul electoral season, one conservative voters (or their children) will look back on with political regret and personal remorse.   Mr. Trump's "Mexican" slur about federal judge Gonzalo Curiel is the most shameful word uttered by a major presidential candidate since Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond thundered in the 1948 against the "nigra race".  As in 1948,  Mr. Trump is appealing to constituents who have stuffed themselves on a diet of bad statistics and misleading anecdotes - people who fancy themselves victims but behave like bigots.   Republican leaders who think they can co-opt or tame Mr. Trump will instead find themselves stained by him.

[geronl]

If Trump the candidate says stuff like this now against judges he doesn't like...what's he going to say to SCOTUS Judges or other Federal Judges that rule against him if he becomes President.

"Ruth Bader Ginsberg...that JEW!"

"That fat lesbian Elana Keagan"

He probably has more views in common with them than with Clarence Thomas.

[txradioguy]

He probably has more views in common with them than with Clarence Thomas.

I think you're right.  But Trump has proven that no one is safe from his special brand of wrath if they dare to question him or are critical of a decision he makes.