Trump was absolutely within his rights as a litigant and as a citizen to question the partiality of Gonzalo Curiel, the presiding judge in the series of class action lawsuits brought against Trump University. 

Further, on the record before me, Trump's criticism appears to have merit, and instead of being vilified Trump, as the real-party-in-interest defendant in a case that has dragged on for over six (6) years (the initial complaint was filed in April, 2010), should be applauded for exposing the dirty little secrets of federal judges and those of the large, politically connected law firms like Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd who practice class action litigation before them (after trolling for plaintiffs on the firm’s website).

This is particularly so in case where, as here, both the presiding judge (in his affiliations, his rulings, and, possibly, in his courtroom demeanor) as well as the law firm representing the class action plaintiffs (nearly $700,000 in speaking fees paid to Clinton, Inc. since 2009 – an unheard of sum for a law firm) reflect an inherent bias towards a litigant who is conspicuously opposed both to illegal Mexican immigration and to the dynastic ambitions of the Democrat presidential candidate who has been the principal recipient of the firm’s largesse.

Ask yourself this question: Do you think knee-jerk progressives - so eager to impugn Trump for alleged racism (and for every other trait offensive to man) as a result of his comments about Judge Curiel - would have the same take were an Afro-American defendant in a civil case to question the impartiality of a presiding white judge who appeared to have ties, say, to a white supremacist organization, or even an all white country club?

Hint: No. Instead, they would be (i) assailing the judge personally, (ii) clamoring for his recusal on grounds that not just the fact but the appearance of partiality must be avoided, or (iii) both.

Neutral principles anyone?

Several additional points need to be made:

First, neither Judge Curiel (an Obama appointee) nor any other judge inoculates himself from a litigant’s First Amendment criticism by joining the federal bench. (Ironically, the same people horrified at Trump’s outspokenness are full-throated in their obloquy for the judge who imposed a “lenient” six (6)-month sentence for Brock Turner, the convicted defendant in the Stanford rape case. 

Second, anyone who has ever tried a case, civil or criminal, knows that the political (and other) biases of judges (all of whom secured their positions either through political appointments or running in elections as political candidates) are frequently insufficiently masked from the litigants and lawyers who appear before them, and can influence the outcome of those cases. Were it otherwise, the remedy of judicial recusal would be unnecessary. It is anything but.

Third, most criticism of Trump entirely overlooks the essential point: Whether the judge has in fact demonstrated judicial bias against Trump in the three civil cases over which he presides. Trump, as the real party in interest, is in a better position than any of his critics to know that, as it is he who, presumably, speaks to his defense counsel and hears their complaints about the rulings or demeanor (or both) of Judge Curiel.

Fourth, there was nothing racial (and certainly nothing racially invidious) in Trump's comments, except in the general sense that any observation about another’s race or national origin can be considered "racist". 

Fifth, given Trump's conspicuous views on illegal Mexican immigration, any judge of Mexican descent involved in an entity entitled "La Raza Lawyers of San Diego Scholarship Fund", whose relationship with the radical National Council of La Raza remains insufficiently unexplored by the MSM, probably ought to recuse himself from the case, if only to avoid the appearance of partiality.

Sixth, in the final analysis, whatever its political fallout (and in my view that fallout will be nugatory), it was a very shrewd trial tactic for Trump, as a litigant, to call out a judge whom he considers biased. After all the sturm und drang, Judge Curiel will now think twice, if he hasn’t already, about putting his thumb on the scale of justice.