We really must try to be reasonable when we consider Mr. Trump's claim that the judge hearing his case concerning the complaint by former students at Trump University that he conned them out of their life's savings for bogus "courses" in a scam university.
Mr. Trump, after all, strikes a reasonable tone when he tells us that the judge hearing his case is of Mexican origin, and is a member of a Mexican American organization, sort of a Hispanic version of the Rotary Club, which, as Mr. Trump says, is fine.
It's just that since Mr. Trump wants to build a wall between the judge's ancestral home and the United States, so it's only common sense the judge cannot possibly give Mr. Trump a fair hearing, after all, that one attribute of the judge--his Hispanic background has to be his core identity. Of course, if Kurt Vonnegut was correct, the judge might consider his Indiana birthplace the most important thing about himself--being a Hoosier is one of those things people from Indiana seem to escalate into a cause.
Mr. Trump is simply saying he understands how he may have offended the judge-- can't blame the judge Mr. Trump says; the judge simply cannot be fair and should recuse himself.
So let us consider who might be acceptable as a judge for any case involving Mr. Trump, now and in the future.
Let's break people down into simple attributes. We could look for fellow television celebrities. like maybe, Jimmy Smits, who has affinity for good roles on TV, and attribute he shares with Mr. Trump, but, no, being Hispanic, he is obviously disqualified as that Trumps everything, although he is also excluded for having played a Democrat on West Wing.
Justice Sotomayer is clearly out, if for no other reason than Obama appointed her, and she is Hispanic, a double whammy. Women, are in general excluded, but especially Hispanic women, especially if they are particularly accomplished, because accomplished people, like the astronaut Ochoa, have it in for incompetent amateurs like Mr. Trump.
Personally, I'd like to recommend Joan Baez, but there's that Mexican thing.
She has a wonderful voice, and she hung out with Bob Dylan, which should be enough to recommend anyone, but no, there's just that South of the Border thing.
Mr. Trump would, by all indications, exclude Muhammad Ali from a jury hearing his case, because Ali was, well, Muslim. Not born that way, but still. And he rejected his God given Christianity, so he is doubly suspect. I mean, he had a wonderful name, "Cassius Clay," which he jettisoned like used Kleenex , to become Muhammad Ali.
George Carlin, who was Irish, actually judged Mr. Ali quite generously, despite their ethnic differences: Mr. Carlin observed that Mr. Ali had an unusual profession--beating people up, but Ali drew the line at killing them. The government wanted Ali to kill people in Vietnam and Ali said, "No, no, no. I'll beat them up, but I won't kill them," and so he got stripped of his livelihood and treated poorly. Well, he's dead now, so this is a moot point.
And we don't want any losers, like guys who got captured during any wars. Even if they are veterans, those guys who got their airplanes shot down are just so lame. After all, Mr. Trump went to a military school so he almost knows about combat.
|That loser McCain|
Dr. Oz is also stricken from the jury--another Muslim, although surely Mr. Trump must appreciate his showmanship. They've got that in common, but still if Mr. Trump had his way, Dr. Oz would have never been allowed past the customs gate at JFK airport. Doesn't matter all they have in common, being rich, living in New York, being TV stars--that Islam thing Trumps all.
Now, who could be left? Should be someone not Muslim, Hispanic or a Democrat. Nobody too dark because, well the Donald is very blond and you know how dark skinned people envy blonds. No women, because, like Meghan Kelly, they bleed from all the wrong places. Women cannot be objective about Mr. Trump, although, like Hispanics, women love Mr. Trump.
We really ought to match up the ethnic background, which might sound politically incorrect, but liberals do that all the time with affirmative action, so if we are selecting people or excluding people for attributes, well then we are profiling, but everyone does it. Let's just use the profiling in a positive way to choose someone who would likely see so much in common with Mr. Trump, he'd be a good bet for the jury.
So, who? Or what?
Wait, I've got it: