Recall John Irving's 1978 book, The World According to Garp. A famous line out of that novel is, "In the world according to Garp, we are all terminal cases". Fast forward to this past week where Donald J. Trump accuses noted federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of a conflict of interest because Judge Curiel was born in Indiana of Mexican heritage; that is Trump's (not his lawyers) only basis for Trump to state that Judge Curiel hates Trump, and because Trump is going to build a wall separating our country's southern border from Mexico. This has now become the rule of law according to...Trump. As Garp prognosticated 38 years ago, his (Trump's) "rule of law" shows a terminal condition of thought brought on by his view of the reality in which he believes he is master of all and, in turn, all then are subservient in deeds, thoughts, investigation, logic, honesty, and charity, to himself. This is, in this writer's opinion, well, delusional.
Being a lawyer for some 43 years now, as well as a member of various law faculties, a writer and lecturer, I put forth the first paragraph with some expertise and background. For those not schooled or trained in the law, however, let me try to put in lay terms what Trump now believes. Judge Curiel has before him one of the cases against Trump's now defunct Trump University brought on by former students, claiming that the "university" (it wasn't really a school of higher learning sanctioned by any certifying authority) defrauded them. Recently, Judge Curiel ruled against Trump, on a discovery matter in the case. The court ordered the production of certain documents that Trump's lawyers did not want to have produced.
Trump rails against those that disagree with him, that find fault with him, that uncover statements made by him that are clearly found to be dishonest, and, now, adverse legal rulings made by qualified jurists. To this end, Trump calls out with invectives all such individuals. But he has now carved out a rule of law never before having become a basis to disqualify a judge under any constitution, under any appellate court decision or via any scholarly analysis. Taking Trump's position to its logical conclusion, he should be able disqualify any judge that rules against him based on heritage alone, noting that in a piece published this past week in the USA Today, he or his companies have been involved in some 3,500 lawsuits, both as a plaintiff and as a defendant. But forget those on the bench with a Mexican heritage. Let's take a judge that a Jewish; does that mean such a jurist cannot rule on matters asserted against the State of Israel or that implicates judaism? Or, what of an African American judge; can he or she not rule on matters pointing fingers at the NAACP or other similarly venued organizations. And heaven forbid a Trump matter before a judge that is Muslim. The answer to all these hypotheticals is, of course, there is no conflict of interest nor "hatred" for one side or another just because of a judge's heritage.
What Trump is doing when it comes to self-declaring a conflict of interest without a legal basis whatsoever is to declare the law in his world---a prism in which only he lives and operates. If anything, one might say he is uninformed or misguided or even lacks the knowledge about the bases to declare that a judge has a conflict of interest. I prefer to maintain, reiterating from above in this post, that Mr. Trump is delusional when he spews out that a jurist's heritage, without more, disqualifies a sitting judge.
Mr. Trump, judges rule. One side "wins"; one side "loses". So get use to the fact that you and your companies are not perfect, have faults, are disliked, and, just because Judge Curiel ordered Trump U. to produce documents, in no way indicates that he is being unfair or not being impartial to what your lawyers are presenting on your behalf in his courtroom.
Once we read about the world according to Garp; now the American electorate has to decide whether the law [or even the world] according to Trump is part of American jurisprudence. Clearly what Trump sees as reality in his world is not what exists in our world, certainly not the rule of law to which we all must adhere.