When US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel unsealed a hoard of highly unflattering documents this week about Trump University, Donald Trump responded the way one would expect: with bullying and race-baiting.

“They ought to look into Judge Curiel,” Trump declared, “because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace.” Trump also asserted that the Indiana-born Curiel “happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great”. Trump also called for Curiel to recuse himself … on the grounds that he made decisions Trump disagreed with.

Donald Trump's sole consistent trait: offering pricey, empty promises | Jeb Lund Read more

His attacks exemplify, yet again, why the prospect of a President Trump is terrifying. First of all, they suggest a rather cavalier attitude towards judicial independence. Politicians are, needless to say, free to publicly criticize judges, even when they’re one of the parties before the court. But the call to “look into” Curiel crosses a line towards being threatening.

Admittedly, there are limits to how much Trump could threaten judicial independence from the White House. Article III of the consitution provides various tools that could theoretically undermine the independence of the courts – packing federal courts with additional members selected by the president, stripping the courts of jurisdiction and removal from office. All of these actions, however, would require an act of Congress. Given that FDR’s proposal to pack the courts was rejected by Congress in the aftermath of a historic landslide in the 1936 presidential election, it’s unlikely that even a Trump-friendly Republican Congress would take such extreme measures.

But there’s still reason for concern. Would Trump be willing to abide by adverse rulings? And how much in general would Trump feel bound by legal constraints?

His threatening comments are the latest example of the authoritarian tendencies that have been central to his rise. They’re also an example of what the libertarian-leaning law professor Orin Kerr has called “the politics of delegitimization”. Because Curiel disagrees with Trump, he is therefore inherently corrupt and unfit for office. Democracy is premised, in part, on the promise that the losing factions of an election remain members of the political community. Having a president who believes that legitimate opposition is a logical impossibility is highly dangerous.

And Trump’s attacks on Curiel show that Trump’s particular “politics of delegitimization” have a strongly white supremacist component. Trump referred to Curiel as “Mexican” as a way of indicating that he was therefore not really American. This emphasis on racial hierarchy has been central to Trump’s campaign, from his proposals to ban Muslims from entering the country to his proposal to build a wall on the southern border. When Trump says he wants to “make America great again”, in large measure he means “make America more like it was when it was whiter”.

How Donald Trump emboldens bigots across the world | Amana Fontanella-Khan Read more

And while Republicans might like to think that the race-baiting Trump continues to engage in is incidental to his support, it’s not. As the political scientist Phil Klinkner has shown with the use of public opinion data, “Trump’s appeal has little to do with economics” but instead is primarily explained by racial resentment. Calling an American-born judge “Mexican” isn’t just a random insult; it’s part of a successful political strategy.

And it’s reminiscent of the comments that made Trump a major figure in Republican politics: his assertions that Barack Obama was not actually an American but had been born in Africa. Did Trump’s embrace of racist paranoia make him toxic within the Republican party? Hardly.

Mitt Romney might bemoan Trump now, but when he was running for president in 2012 he enthusiastically sought the endorsement of the country’s most famous birther. Trump’s disgraceful attacks on Curiel represent what he’s always been. He didn’t come out of nowhere; he’s just blunter about exploiting racial resentment than the typical national Republican politician.