Senator Warren, former Law Professor, on danger to "equal justice under law" in USA judiciary and on Trump's attacks on Judge Curiel

Last modified on 17th June 2016

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren:
Elizabeth Ann Warren (née Herring; born June 22, 1949) is an American academic and politician, the senior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. She is a member of the Democratic Party, and was previously a Harvard Law School professor specializing in bankruptcy law. A prominent legal scholar, Warren was among the most cited in the field of commercial law while at Harvard University. She is an active consumer protection advocate whose scholarship led to the conception and establishment of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Warren has written a number of academic and popular works, and is a frequent subject of media interviews regarding the American economy and personal finance.
--- end wiki extract ---

Here's a recent video, Elizabeth Warren ACS Convention FULL Speech SLAMS --snip-- Donald Trump, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkvzmXX-AGM, 27 min. 59 secs, published June 9th 2016. Please note that the language used is very strong. From around 11:45 into the video, Warren talks about the Trump university case and how Mr. Trump has attacked Judge Curiel. She says that the code of judicial ethics prevents Judge Gonzalo Curiel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalo_P._Curiel, from defending himself/responding to Mr. Trump's attacks on him, but that others ("we") can tell his story (career).Then she gives details of the career of Judge Curiel, especially his very courageous and very effective stint of 13 years as federal prosecutor in Southern California fighting against Mexican drug cartels as a leader of that region's Narcotics enforcement division, which led to him being a target of an assassination plot. Curiel spent the better part of a year officially in hiding under the protection of the US Marshals. She stoutly defends Curiel from Mr. Donald Trump's accusations against him.   Note that she very strongly criticizes Trump. [Please note that if I come across a rebuttal by Mr. Trump of this speech by Warren, I will provide a link to it here.]

Ravi: Even if half of what Warren said in this speech about USA judicial appointments (influenced/controlled by USA elected politicians) is true then it is truly worrying for the principle of "equal justice under law" in USA judiciary. I tried to get a transcript of the speech but was not successful. I plan to try again later.

I wonder how Indian judiciary fares in this regard.
---------------------------

Update on 17th June 2016

I found a transcript of this speech here: http://time.com/4364099/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-republican-party/. I have given some extracts from that transcript below (slightly edited):

Four simple words are engraved above the doors to the Supreme Court: Equal Justice Under Law.

That’s supposed to be the basic promise of our legal system: that our laws are just, and that everyone — everyone — will be held equally accountable if they break those laws.

We haven’t always fulfilled that promise — but it is the absolute standard to which we hold ourselves even when we fall short.

A vital part of that struggle is the fight for a truly professional, independent, and impartial judiciary.

A place governed not by politics, not by money, not by power — but by those four simple words: equal justice under law.

Three years ago, I came to the American Constitution Society to deliver a warning about how that promise is under threat.

I talked pretty bluntly about how we are losing the fight over whether our courts will remain a neutral forum, faithfully interpreting the law and dispensing fair and impartial justice, or whether rich and powerful interests will completely capture our judicial branch.

I talked about how year after year, for more than thirty years, powerful interests have worked to rewrite the law and tilt the courts to favor billionaires and giant corporations. Cases that protected giant businesses from accountability. Cases that made it harder for individuals to get into court. Cases that gutted longstanding laws protecting consumers from being cheated. And cases like Citizens United, which unleashed an avalanche of billionaire SuperPAC dollars and secret corporate money in a mad dash to tilt the rest of the government in favor of the wealthy.

Today, I’m here to update that warning. Because what we’ve seen over the past three years — accelerating over the past three months, and even the past three weeks — is alarming. Powerful interests are now launching a full-scale assault on the integrity of the federal judiciary and its judges.

This assault has two major elements. First, tearing down our centuries-old process for appointing judges. Second, viciously attacking judicial nominees, potential nominees, and even sitting federal judges, at the first sign that they might put the rule of law above devotion to the rich and powerful.
...
The attacks around the current Supreme Court vacancy have been even uglier. At one point, Senator --name-snipped--  — the #2 Republican in the Senate — announced that any nominee — ANY NOMINEE — put forward by the President would be beaten like “a piñata.” And his right-wing billionaire and big business allies have made good on that threat.

When rumors circulated that Jane Kelly, a highly respected federal judge, might — might — be under consideration, the Judicial Crisis Network — a shadowy right-wing group financed with dark money from the billionaire --name-snipped--  — ran television ads attacking her for her service to the nation as a federal public defender.

The President eventually nominated Merrick Garland — a judge so revered for his professionalism that days before he was announced, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch called him a “fine man” who the President could “easily name” to fill the vacancy. And what happened?

Scores of Republican Senators refused to even meet with him. The Judicial Crisis Network started spending millions of dollars on television ads demeaning him.

The NFIB — a right-wing Washington lobbying group that claims to speak for small businesses but is swimming in cash from conservative billionaires — announced that it would oppose Garland’s nomination because “[i]n cases involving federal agencies, the Judge ruled in their favor 77 percent of the time.” Every lawyer in this room knows that federal law requires judges defer to most agency actions. But apparently, it doesn’t matter anymore whether Judge Garland follows the law — what matters is that he doesn’t bend the law to suit giant corporations.

Judge Garland is not a politician. He is a judge with an unimpeachable record of putting the law first. And for that sin, he faces a nonstop, national campaign of slime. He faces historic disrespect from the Republicans who control Senate. It is despicable. It must end. We must end it.
...
Because in America, we have the rule of law — and that means that no matter how rich you are, no matter how loud you are, no matter how famous you are, if you break the law, you can be held accountable. Even when your name is Donald Trump.

But Trump doesn’t think those rules apply to him. So at a political rally two weeks ago, and almost daily since then, the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States has savagely attacked Gonzalo Curiel, the federal judge presiding over his case.

“We are in front of a very hostile judge,” Trump said. “Frankly, he should recuse himself. He has given us ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative.”

Understand what this is. Trump is criticizing Judge Curiel for following the law, instead of bending it to suit the financial interests of one wealthy and oh-so-fragile defendant.

Trump also whined that he’s being been treated “unfairly” because “the judge … happens to be, we believe, Mexican.” And when he got called out, he doubled down by saying “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest.” He’s personally directed his army of campaign surrogates to step up their own public attacks on Judge Curiel. He’s even condemned federal judges who are Muslim — on the disgusting theory that Trump’s own bigotry compromises the judges’ neutrality.

Like all federal judges, Judge Curiel is bound by the federal code of judicial ethics not to respond to these attacks. Trump is picking on someone who is ethically bound not to defend himself — exactly what you’d expect from a ---snip---.

Judge Curiel can’t respond — but we can. We can tell his story.

Gonzalo Curiel was born in Indiana — not Mexico — to immigrant parents who worked hard their entire lives and were handed nothing. He went to Indiana University for undergrad and then for law school.

For thirteen years, he worked as a federal prosecutor in Southern California, fighting the Mexican drug cartels as a leader of that region’s narcotics enforcement division. He collaborated with top Mexican officials to disrupt the culture of corruption between the Mexican government and the most powerful and deadly cocaine smugglers in North America.

The effort was impressive. On both sides of the border, money launderers, street gangs, and assassins were arrested and prosecuted.

But that success came at great cost. Witnesses were killed. Mexican officials were murdered. Judge Curiel himself was the target of an assassination plot and spent the better part of a year living officially in hiding, under the protection of U.S. Marshals.

Later, after his years of service as a prosecutor, Judge Curiel was appointed to the California state courts by a Republican governor who calls him an “American hero.” He was nominated to the federal bench by a Democratic president, and confirmed by a voice vote in the Senate.

That’s what kind of a man Judge Curiel is. What kind of a man is Donald Trump?
...
We are not a nation that disqualifies lawyers and judges from public service because of race — or religion — or gender — or because they haven’t spent their entire careers representing the wealthy and the powerful.

We are the nation of John Adams — a lawyer who defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, and went on to serve as President of these United States.

We are the nation of Abraham Lincoln — a lawyer who defended accused killers, and went on to serve as President of these United States.

We are the nation of Thurgood Marshall — a lawyer who fought for racial equality, and went on to serve on the Supreme Court of these United States.

We are the nation of Ruth Bader Ginsberg — a lawyer who fought for gender equality, and went on to serve on the Supreme Court of these United States.
...
It’s time again to fight — as we have in every generation — for those four simple words that define the promise of our legal system. Equal justice under law.
--- end extracts from transcript of Senator Warren's speech ---

Please note that I have a PUBLICLY NEUTRAL informal-student-observer role in these posts that I put up about the USA presidential elections. Of course, as I am an Indian citizen living in India, there is no question of me voting in these elections.

[I thank Wikipedia and time.com, and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extracts from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]