Hillary Makes History: First Subject of FBI Investigation to Win Nomination
Meet the all-but-certain Democratic nominee, from Turner Echols: 
The New York Times is not pleased that Bernie Sanders refuses to concede defeat or acknowledge the historic significance of Clinton's victory: Despite the crushing California results that rolled in for him on Tuesday night, despite the insurmountable delegate math and the growing pleas that he end his quest for the White House, Senator Bernie Sanders took to the stage in Santa Monica and basked, bragged and vowed to fight on. In a speech of striking stubbornness, he ignored the history-making achievement of his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, who became the first woman in American history to clinch the presidential nomination of a major political party. Mr. Sanders waited until 15 minutes into his speech to utter Mrs. Clinton's name. He referred, almost in passing, to a telephone conversation in which he had congratulated her on her victories. At that, the crowd of more than 3,000 inside an aging airport hangar booed loudly. Mr. Sanders did little to discourage them. Charles Krauthammer: "I do think that the historic factor is very much minimized and muted. It'll probably last for an hour or two tonight, but after all, [Clinton] has essentially been running for 16 years." Elizabeth Nolan Brown, writing over at Reason: "People aren't tepid about Hillary Clinton. And whether the vitriol is tied up in her policies, her persona, her sex, or all of the above, it's not the sort of thing people -- especially young voters -- are likely or willing to put aside, even temporarily, for the sake of celebrating symbolism." Ann Althouse makes a point about the overused and not-always-clear "glass ceiling" metaphor: "The metaphor that won't go away. Broken ceilings don't sound inherently good, and I wonder how many people remember (if they ever knew) why, in that metaphor, breaking part of a building is supposed to be good." Funny, I Didn't See Renee Ellmers at Trump's Victory Rally Last Night In other news out of North Carolina, the 2016 primary season finally saw an incumbent House Republican lose a primary battle: Renee Ellmers, elected in 2010. Ellmers just happens to be the one House Republican endorsed in a primary by Donald Trump so far this year. I'd love to let out a bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha, but the alliance with Trump is, at most, the third reason for Ellmers's defeat. The biggest reason was a dramatic redrawing of House district lines, one that left her running against another North Carolina GOP Congressman, George Holding. Considering the district lines, Holding began with an advantage: "the new 2nd District will contain far more people and places that Holding currently represents than Ellmers currently represents." In the end, it wasn't close: "You go to Washington and you think you vote the right way," Holding said at his victory party Tuesday night. "I try to vote in a conservative manner, and you wonder sometimes, do people even notice? This primary gave me the opportunity to learn that people do notice." With all precincts reporting, Holding defeated Ellmers by about 30 percentage points. Ellmers squeaked out a second-place finish by less than a percentage point over tea-party-connected candidate Greg Brannon. The second biggest reason was Ellmers's role in undermining key pro-life legislation: Congressional leaders had planned for weeks to bring up a bill to ban abortions after 20-weeks on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. But Ellmers sabotaged the bill by insisting that broad rape and incest exceptions needed to be added to the bill that many pro-life groups were worried would undermine the bill entirely and render the ban moot. National Right to Life ripped her: "There is no member of Congress in recent memory who has done greater harm to a major piece of pro-life legislation, while claiming to be pro-life, than Renee Ellmers." Having said that, Ellmers had Trump record a robocall for her, and The Atlantic was speculating about the possibility of a "Trump Bump" Tuesday night. Not only could Trump not save Ellmers in her GOP primary Thursday night, it's not clear his endorsement did any good. How many incumbent Congressional Republicans want to bet on Trump's voters to save them in November? Meet Judge Gonzalo Curiel, and See What Else He's Done on the Bench In case you missed it last night, I took a detailed look at the judicial career of Gonzalo Curiel, the U.S. District Court judge handling two of the Trump university cases. If he's a Latino-nationalist, hard-line partisan activist from the bench, he's hidden it well in his decisions and his reputation among lawyers in California. He's ruled against Indian tribes, endangered-species activists, and hotel employee unions. Here's a surprising fact that might appeal to Donald Trump: as a prosecutor, he defended the use of testimony that may been obtained through torture by Mexican law-enforcement officials. "The government is not here to deny there is a possibility of torture," Curiel declared in a ruling for a U.S. district court in 1997. "There are serious allegations of torture. But the forum for those allegations to be aired is the Government of Mexico." A lot of Trump fans see Curiel's partiality as an open-and-shut case, pointing to his membership in La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, also sometimes referred to as the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. Curiel's been a member since at least 2007, and the group held a reception honoring the judge on May 25. A lot of media reports point out that the group is distinct from the Latino advocacy organization the National Council of La Raza, but for what it's worth, La Raza Lawyers of San Diego links to the national group on its web page. (Know who else was once a member of the La Raza Lawyers Association? Fox News contributor Kimberly Guilfoyle, who's been a pretty ardent defender of Donald Trump.) When nominated for his seat on the U.S. District Court in 2011, Curiel listed La Raza Lawyers of San Diego among the ten bar associations and professional groups he belonged to and declared, in a legal affidavit, "To the best of my knowledge, none of the organizations discriminates or formerly discriminated on the basis of sex, race, religion or national origin." He told the Senate Judiciary Committee, "The judicial process must be administered fairly without regard to a person's background, economic situation, or personal situation. Cases must be decided based upon admissible evidence and the applicable law." "Empathy does not play a role in the judicial process," Curiel wrote in response to questions from Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), contradicting the perspective of President Obama. "A judge protects the 'little guy' -- and the 'big guy' -- by applying the law fairly and evenhandedly to all of the parties whether they are 'little' or 'big.' Curiel also differed from Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who defended justices' citing precedents in foreign laws and asked, "Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" "Foreign law does not constitute binding precedent for a U.S. judge. In general, foreign law should not be considered in making decisions or rulings," Curiel told the committee. "However, in certain limited circumstances, such as international commerce cases involving contracts governed by laws of other countries, it may become necessary to consider foreign law to properly decide a case." He added he was "committed to following precedent faithfully even if I disagree with such precedent." ADDENDA: Connecticut governor Dannel Malloy -- who once dismissed National Review as "a right-wing tea bag organization" now enjoys an approval rating of . . . 24 percent. A mere 68 percent of Connecticut voters disapprove of his performance? How bad is that? For perspective, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, with his 26 percent approval rating is looking at Malloy and exclaiming, "Man, that guy's in trouble."  | 
Comments
Post a Comment