Trump's "Mexican Judge" becomes "Wall Judge"

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

With a fascinating twist of fate, a federal judge who Trump had a few rough words with over his Trump University court case, which wound up settling for $25 million, and of whom Trump referred to as being "Mexican," is now going to be the judge who hears the next installment of the Mexican Wall case.  When the June 2016 verbal confrontation occurred, the liberal media exclaimed "he's not Mexican, he's from Indiana."

I don't know what Judge Curel's heritage is, but it's either Spanish, or that of what was once a Spanish colony.  That said, if he is of Mexican heritage, does it really matter if he was born in Indiana, Los Angeles, or Mexico City?  The majority of American born people of Mexican descent I know calls themselves "Mexican."  Attacking Trump for using a word that would naturally be used for someone of Mexican descent is simply a case of the media trying to make Trump look racist. . . and it was quite a stretch.  To be honest, the only Americans of Mexican descent I know that don't call themselves either "Mexican," or "Mexican-American" are conservatives . . . of which they call themselves "American," and their leftist friends and family call them "coconuts" (brown on the outside, white on the inside).

If Curiel is of a different heritage, then so be it.

If someone called me Norwegian, or Polish, or Austrian, should I consider them racist?

I really don't care.  I am an American.  Sure, I'm loaded with a mutt-load of various nationalities and ethnicities - Welsh, Blackfoot, English, Irish, Swedish, Dutch, Scottish, Cherokee, and French - and you can't offend me by calling me something else. In fact, likely due to the North American Indian blood in me, I tan pretty dark, and while I was in construction, I got called "Mexican" quite a bit (mainly because I performed work I hear Americans aren't willing to do).   Should I have been upset?  Should I have said, "I'm not Mexican, I'm from California!"

Well, though the "Mexican" comment by Trump is in the past, the liberal left still wants to drag it through the mud, mainly because it turns out that Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the Trump University judge, will now be presiding over the hearing in U.S. District Court regarding a legal challenge that has been posed to Trump's border wall's construction and its potential impacts on the environment.

Notice, the liberal left couldn't attack the Trump's administration border wall plans effectively regarding national security or securing the border, because the wall is perfectly constitutional in that regard (Article IV., Section 4); so they have attacked the wall with a charge that it violates environmental laws, and that the President of the United States has no authority to disregard those laws.

The plaintiffs claim that the Trump administration is exceeding its authority in waiving environmental laws to build new border structures, including the eight wall prototypes that have already been erected near the Otay Mesa port of entry in San Diego, California.

They also argued that the wall construction could result in "irreparable harm" to wildlife and ecosystems along the border.

... because, I suppose, gnat catching birds, and plants that we would pull out of our yard because they are weeds, are somehow more important than national security, and border security.

The Trump administration's defense is that the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to waive the environmental laws, and that previous courts have upheld the department's authority on border security.

"Congress unmistakably expressed its policy judgment that construction of the barriers and roads along the border was of such importance that it justified waiving application of environmental and other laws," the Trump administration said in a brief.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary