Meet Goodwin Liu, next appointee to the federal appeals court

posted at 1:36 pm on March 16, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama’s latest appeals-court nominee, Professor Goodwin Liu, will appear a week from tomorrow [see update] at the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing.  Liu, currently teaching at Berkeley, will serve on the oft-overruled 9th Circuit court if he manages to do well in his appearance.  And he should, because he has the rather unique status of having testified at the committee before — in 2006, when Liu opposed Samuel Alito’s confirmation:

“Judge Alito has an exceptionally talented legal mind. . . . [H]is opinions have demonstrated sharp analysis, lawyerly craft, and impressive mastery of complex issues.  He clearly possesses the intellectual ability required for appointment to the nation’s highest court. .. Intellect . . . is a necessary but not sufficient credential.  Equally important are the subtle qualities of judging that give the law its legitimacy, humanity, and semblance of justice.  We care about nominees’ ‘judicial philosophy.’”…

“Justice Alito’s lack of skepticism toward government power that infringes on individual rights and liberties. . . . In this area, Judge Alito’s record is at the margin of the judicial spectrum, not the mainstream.”

“[Justice Alito’s] deferential instinct towards government [was] at odds with the Supreme Court’s vital role in protecting privacy, freedom, and due process of law, and [that instinct] deserve[d] special concern in light of questionable tactics used to fight the War on Terror.”

Has anyone who testified against someone’s appointment to the Supreme Court been appointed so quickly to an appellate court whose decisions will get reviewed by that justice?  It seems a rather odd set of circumstances, one that emphasizes Liu’s status as an activist rather than someone with the judicial temperament to serve on the appellate bench.

Nor is this the only oddity in Liu’s approach to reasoned, detached application of the law. He has a rather expansive view of “rights,” as well.  In his book Education, Equality and National Citizenship (2006), Liu wrote:

“The duty of government cannot be reduced to simply providing the basic necessities of life . . . the main pillars of the agenda would include . . . expanded health insurance, child care, transportation subsidies, job training, and a robust earned income tax credit.”

Certainly one can make an argument for those policies as policies, but not as natural rights as understood by the founders.  Granted, that passage doesn’t directly address these as rights, but later in his 2009 essay National Citizenship and The Promise of Equal Opportunity,
Liu makes the connection more clearly, emphasis mine:

“[W]e must be careful to ensure that the ideal of national citizenship does not infuse public education with nativism, cultural conformity, or chauvinistic nationalism and we should not use the concept of citizenship to deny education to noncitizen children, not least because the Equal Protection Clause extends to ‘persons,’ not only to citizens. At the same time . . . we should be thoughtful but not bashful in forging political solidarity necessary for redistributive mutual aid.”

Redistribution.  Where have I heard that before?   Do we need a judge who believes that the Constitution sets that as a right?

In his Keeping Faith with the Constitution (2009), Liu gives a clearer idea of his approach to constitutional philosophy:

“[C]onstitutional meaning is a function of both text and context.  In many instances, a court cannot be faithful to the principle embodied in the text unless it takes into account the social context in which the text is interpreted.  The relevant context includes not only social conditions and facts about the world, but also public values and social understandings as reflected in statutes, common law, and other parts of the legal landscape. ”

“The words and principles of the Constitution endure as our fundamental law because they have been made relevant to the conditions and challenges of each generation through an ongoing process of interpretation.”

In other words, the Constitution means whatever we say it means, despite its clear and rather ascetic text.

Presidents have the ability to appoint whomever they want to the bench.  Elections do have consequences, and that is one of the more substantial ones.  However, that doesn’t mean that the Senate has to approve each appointee (although it should mean an up or down vote on the Senate floor), and Liu appears to be a radical addition to the one appellate court that hardly needs another.

Update: Originally, my source believed this hearing to be scheduled for tomorrow, but it’s actually for a week from tomorrow, on March 24th.  My apologies for the confusion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Thank you.

darwin on March 16, 2010 at 4:14 PM

From one hateful wingnut to another.

Dark-Star on March 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Miss the point much?

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:15 PM

No, not really. Do you ever have one?

darwin on March 16, 2010 at 4:17 PM

From one hateful wingnut to another.

Dark-Star on March 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Don’t you have a pie to bake?

darwin on March 16, 2010 at 4:18 PM

heh. Not likely. I finished first in my class first semester.

crr6 on March 16, 2010 at 4:15 PM

The next response will be “all your rankings and fancy degrees dont mean anything, you are still stupid because you had the temerity to disagree with me using legal realities.”

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:21 PM

From one hateful wingnut to another.

Dark-Star on March 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM

you ever hear of the parable of the glass house?

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:22 PM

darwin on March 16, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Do you ever wonder why the liberals have to spend so much time telling each other how great they are?

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:22 PM

No, not really. Do you ever have one?

darwin on March 16, 2010 at 4:17 PM

*sigh* yes I do. The point being, that the Courts are not going to find anything outside of (possibly) mandates. Thus a political solution is the only real answer.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:23 PM

We are not the Netherlands

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 3:57 PM

We aren’t in a constitutional republic any more either.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:23 PM

We are not the Netherlands

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Irrelevant to the point at hand, but you knew that before you attempted to change the subject again.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:24 PM

you ever hear of the parable of the glass house?

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Do you ever wonder why the liberals have to spend so much time telling each other how great they are?

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Want some ketchup for that foot in your mouth?

Dark-Star on March 16, 2010 at 4:24 PM

We aren’t in a constitutional republic any more either.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:23 PM

I agree there, we are in some sort of weird corporatist social-welfare state.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Hopefully, you will flunk out. We have more than enough Marxist lawyers already.

Sporty1946 on March 16, 2010 at 4:11 PM

If she’s marxist enough, she won’t flunk out.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Do you ever wonder why the liberals have to spend so much time telling each other how great they are?

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Often, it seems to reveal a deep insecurity, hence the need to control all others.

darwin on March 16, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Want some ketchup for that foot in your mouth?

Dark-Star on March 16, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Desperate, but then, you usually are.

Please list the thred where I and someone else spend half a page telling each other how great we are.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:27 PM

*sigh* yes I do. The point being, that the Courts are not going to find anything outside of (possibly) mandates. Thus a political solution is the only real answer.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Really now … that’s it? Just mandates? Well, seeing as I heard it from you and a first year law student who voted for Obama and thinks it’s just peachy to force an ideology on an unwilling populace I think I’ll keep reading.

darwin on March 16, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Irrelevant to the point at hand, but you knew that before you attempted to change the subject again.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:24 PM

I dont see why I would be the one changing the subject. The Netherlands are relevant to this discussion how? Outside of them being one nation in the constellation of social-welfare states in Europe.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:28 PM

I agree there, we are in some sort of weird corporatist social-welfare state.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Dontcha just love the way liberals actually believe that corporations are running this country.

That’s why they want an all powerfull govt to protect us.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:28 PM

I dont see why I would be the one changing the subject. The Netherlands are relevant to this discussion how? Outside of them being one nation in the constellation of social-welfare states in Europe.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:28 PM

crr6 said that the people would vote out any politicians who tried to conscript doctors. I pointed out a country where the politicians did just that and weren’t voted out.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:29 PM

darwin on March 16, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Once again you confuse “just peachy” with what the courts will find unconstitutional. Based on the current proposals, the only thing the courts will likely find unconstitutional would be mandates. And myself and ccr6 are not the only ones to say that. Hotair has posted articles in the past saying the same thing.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:30 PM

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:28 PM

1) not a liberal
2) dont think corporations “run” the country
3) dont think the government is the “only thing to save us”

care to mischaracterize me further.

To say that corporations of varying stripes have not benifited from different levels of government welfare it ignorant in the extreme. To say that politicians do not use their influence to benifit certain corporations over others is also ignorant.

Corporate welfare is just as dangerous to the free market as individual welfare.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Dontcha just love the way liberals actually believe that corporations are running this country.

That’s why they want an all powerfull govt to protect us.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Which is why GM bought the Department of Motor Vehicles…oh wait, the government bought GM.

But I think the word Squid Shark was fumbling for was fascism.

gwelf on March 16, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Dontcha just love the way liberals actually believe that corporations are running this country.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Honest question – if you don’t believe they run the country, what level of influence DO you think they have? I’m intrigued.

Dark-Star on March 16, 2010 at 4:34 PM

crr6 said that the people would vote out any politicians who tried to conscript doctors. I pointed out a country where the politicians did just that and weren’t voted out.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:29 PM

And I pointed out (correctly) that we are not the Netherlands. It is pretty clear that the Dutch are much more pliant to that sort of business than Americans are (as evidenced by the reaction to the merest hint of a government takeover of health care).

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:36 PM

But I think the word Squid Shark was fumbling for was fascism.

gwelf on March 16, 2010 at 4:34 PM

No, right now we are in a weird middle ground. The government controls some levels of production but large corporate entities have been using the levers of and ever increasing government power to control the market at the expense of competitors as well and for much longer than the Obama administration. It is a strange partnership which has led to the destruction of the free market.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM

To say that corporations of varying stripes have not benifited from different levels of government welfare it ignorant in the extreme. To say that politicians do not use their influence to benifit certain corporations over others is also ignorant.

Corporate welfare is just as dangerous to the free market as individual welfare.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Corporate welfare is a bad thing – agreed. However, individual welfare is far more dangerous:

(1) It’s bankrupting our nation. We don’t have unfunded and expanding mandates related to corporate welfare.
(2) The push to solve societies ills by liberals are usually pleas for the need for more individual welfare and an increase in government power to implement it. In other words ‘individual welfare’ is a vehicle the left uses to push through bigger government pretending it’s going to fix our problems.

Also, a lot of corporate welfare exists as a by product of other liberal socialist/fascist utopian dreams – the recent talk of a Green economy for example.

gwelf on March 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM

If she’s marxist enough, she won’t flunk out.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Never been to law school I take it.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Honest question – if you don’t believe they run the country, what level of influence DO you think they have? I’m intrigued.

Dark-Star on March 16, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Very little.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:40 PM

1) not a liberal
2) dont think corporations “run” the country
3) dont think the government is the “only thing to save us”

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Funny, your above posts say just the opposite.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Also, a lot of corporate welfare exists as a by product of other liberal socialist/fascist utopian dreams – the recent talk of a Green economy for example.

gwelf on March 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM

I disagree with this point because the type of corporate welfare I am talking about is older than individual welfare in the US.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Never been to law school I take it.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Just dealt with the wretched refuse that graduates from law schools.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:42 PM

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:41 PM

While liberal is a relative term and I am sure you think everyone who does not think like you is a raging commie, I would love to see any post where I think the government needs to save us or that the corporations run the country.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:43 PM

No, right now we are in a weird middle ground. The government controls some levels of production but large corporate entities have been using the levers of and ever increasing government power to control the market at the expense of competitors as well and for much longer than the Obama administration. It is a strange partnership which has led to the destruction of the free market.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM

I agree we are in some middle ground. The government takes the path of least public resistance: It will outright own a company or an industry if it can (socialism) or it will regulate them or collude with them when it can’t to exert control (fascism).

gwelf on March 16, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Very little.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Thank you. Good to know for the record.

Dark-Star on March 16, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Just dealt with the wretched refuse that graduates from law schools.

MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Sounds like someone didnt get a good result in their divorce.

Dont cry to me because you dont like lawyers, it is not going to change the reality of the situation on the court.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Based on the current proposals, the only thing the courts will likely find unconstitutional would be mandates. And myself and ccr6 are not the only ones to say that. Hotair has posted articles in the past saying the same thing.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Which goes back to an earlier comment I made. Is there really a legal argument here? Or is this just whitewash for a government imposing itself against the will of the people.

This clearly is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. To say that “mandates” might be the only thing found unconstitutional is staggering. Do you really think they wrote what they did so the government could take over banks, GM, student loans, home loans and a myriad of other things not to mention health care?

How in the world can the Constitution, which was so simply and clearly written, and which clearly defines the scope of federal power come to mean the government can force itself upon the populace?

Anyone can argue and convince themselves of anything. The Constitution was not meant to be “interpreted”, it was meant to be followed.

darwin on March 16, 2010 at 4:50 PM

More liberal scum. Yawn.

Claypigeon on March 16, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Obama will wait until he can “recess appoint” the clown…and he’ll be good to go without any hearings.

GoldenEagle4444 on March 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Dont cry to me because you dont like lawyers, it is not going to change the reality of the situation on the court.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Courts are only as valid as the people are willing to follow what they say. For a free people to follow the courts, they must trust the courts. When the people no longer trust their government or the courts … one must go.

darwin on March 16, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 3:14 PM

The 13th therefore allows both slavery and involuntary servitude as punishments for crime. The final clause is the operating clause — how the penalties and enforcement of the amendment shall be implemented. It is certainly within the power of Congress, under the Constitution, to institute a federal form of slavery, including for whom those slaves shall work. We have been moving away from such an idea for the past few score of years (there is no longer anywhere in the US the implementation of “life at hard labor”), but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t return if Congress so decided. In fact, Congress can so decide and also decide, Constitutionally, that review of such cases is outside the perview of the Supreme Court.

Again, read carefully.

unclesmrgol on March 16, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Ed, I just have to tell you, you are the greatest guy! I consider you the blogger equivalent to Bret Baier as he seems just as nice and polite as you are. I am so honored to be in your company, if only as a HA commenter.

margategop517 on March 16, 2010 at 5:32 PM

In contrast, notice I treat respectful and knowledgeable commenters (SquidShark, unclesmrgol) with respectfully.

crr6 on March 16, 2010 at 3:41 PM

What the heck does that mean? Coming from a law student (and nevertheless a troll at that), I expect better grammar and I am just a lowly former English Teacher now graduate student. Sad.

margategop517 on March 16, 2010 at 5:50 PM

I would like to see a debate between this liberal and Mark Levin over the Constitution.

This Liu guy has all these awards and paper “pat on the backs” but really no hard core cases.

Now take Mark Levin, he’s president of the Landmark legal foundation, former chief of staff for Ed Meese. Has won eight cases in front of the Supreme court…who has the fire power here?

Oh, forgot to mention that Levin has number 1 selling non fiction book. Can you guess what book?

b1jetmech on March 16, 2010 at 5:57 PM

I would like to see a debate between this liberal and Mark Levin over the Constitution.

This Liu guy has all these awards and paper “pat on the backs” but really no hard core cases.

Now take Mark Levin, he’s president of the Landmark legal foundation, former chief of staff for Ed Meese. Has won eight cases in front of the Supreme court…who has the fire power here?

Oh, forgot to mention that Levin has number 1 selling non fiction book. Can you guess what book?

b1jetmech on March 16, 2010 at 5:57 PM

I probably agree more with Levin than this guy, but Yale Law, Rhodes Scholar, clerked for SCOTUS v. Mark Levin TTTemple Law graduate?

Yeah. Liu is probably gonna win that one.

Proud Rino on March 16, 2010 at 6:24 PM

“The duty of government cannot be reduced to simply providing the basic necessities of life . . . the main pillars of the agenda would include . . . expanded health insurance, child care, transportation subsidies, job training, and a robust earned income tax credit.”

Liu might be a Constitutional scholar … a Soviet Constitutional scholar

darwin on March 16, 2010 at 6:36 PM

These people need to be stopped. Can’t count on the Repubs, they have no cajones………

ultracon on March 16, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Liu might be a Constitutional scholar … a Soviet Constitutional scholar

darwin on March 16, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Oh snaps!

crr6 on March 16, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Liu might be a Constitutional scholar … a Soviet Constitutional scholar

darwin on March 16, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Now that there is comedy gold.

He can’t (or won’t) distinguish the difference between keeping people from stealing each other’s stuff and a centralized government providing it for everybody.

BTW, some Communist jokes: http://www.coldwarjokes.com/

Dark-Star on March 16, 2010 at 6:41 PM

BTW, some Communist jokes: http://www.coldwarjokes.com/

Dark-Star on March 16, 2010 at 6:41 PM

All you need is Yakov Smirnoff, dude. In Soviet Russia, Constitution interprets you!

Proud Rino on March 16, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Chicom-lite?

No frikkin’ way!

This clown sounds like Chavez’s asiatic strain.

Enough of this anti-U.S. lunacy.

If whiners and de facto marxist moles like Lui hate the profoundly superior American Culture ~that first recognized our inherent rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness~ then let the carpers and termites emigrate to some collectivist, totalitarian sinkhole and suck on their gilded nihilism there.

No more post-American wreckers in power!

profitsbeard on March 16, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Radical left wing judical appointments are to be expected in an Obama Administration.

For those who were lukewarm about John McCain in 2008, he was solid about appointing strict constructionist judges.

One of the areas of damage from an Obama Presidency will be in the kind of personnel who will be put on the federal bench.

Phil Byler on March 16, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Obama is a complete idealogue without a semblance of reasonableness in his body. He is ultra-left wing, fascist politics incarnate

georgealbert on March 16, 2010 at 9:30 PM

I wonder why the liberal trolls are out in force in this thread?

right4life on March 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM

I wonder why the liberal trolls are out in force in this thread?

right4life on March 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Oh boy! Liberal Troll, that is a new one….. *yawn*

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 10:37 PM

but Yale Law, Rhodes Scholar, clerked for SCOTUS v. Mark Levin TTTemple Law graduate?

Yeah so? Because one is academically over rated such as liu, who has all the paper qualifications but no real world “in the trench” cases in SCOTUS court room. The man is intelligent in the eyes of liberals but inexperienced compared to Levin.

I can imagine Levin telling this Liu at the end of a debate that the score is 8-0 in Supreme court cases won.

Yeah. Liu is probably gonna win that one.

I don’t think Liu will last 5 minutes.

Proud Rino on March 16, 2010 at 6:24 PM

b1jetmech on March 16, 2010 at 10:47 PM

Yeah so? Because one is academically over rated such as liu, who has all the paper qualifications but no real world “in the trench” cases in SCOTUS court room. The man is intelligent in the eyes of liberals but inexperienced compared to Levin.

b1jetmech on March 16, 2010 at 10:47 PM

Good call, Liu should have gone somewhere less academically challenging or not done so well so people like you wouldn’t say he was overrated, even though you have no basis for that opinion.

Proud Rino on March 16, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Good call, Liu should have gone somewhere less academically challenging or not done so well so people like you wouldn’t say he was overrated, even though you have no basis for that opinion.

Proud Rino on March 16, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Oh wait a minute here. I didn’t say Liu was over rated by himself. I simply compared Liu with all his academic achievements, to that of Mark Levin’s who has won 8 cases in front of the SCOTUS. How many Liu has won??? After all he is academically superior… heck, you sound as if your ready to plump your lips on his @ss and turn on the vacuum.

Levin was the Chief of staff of Ed meese during the Reagan administration. So in his 20′s Mark Levin was already a chief of staff for the Attorney general. Didn’t take much academical inflation to get that job…must have been a smart guy.

Now, Levin is president of the Landmark Legal foundation. He is preparing to litigate the Obamacare if it should make it’s way through by the “slaughter” method of just approval a bill without a rolcall vote. What does Liu think of that being such an academic scholar he is?

But there are people like me who are not academically superior such as liu. So I can’t make a rational and educational decision about him. I have to be told what to think and to conform, I guess your the lucky schmuck assigned to Hotair to advise all of us.

Liu is with the intelligentsia who wish to change this country for the worse. I don’t care if he can score a %100 on a test every time. The mans a lib and that disqualifies him.

b1jetmech on March 16, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Oh boy! Liberal Troll, that is a new one….. *yawn*

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Does Swine sound better to ya’?

b1jetmech on March 16, 2010 at 11:18 PM

The mans a lib and that disqualifies him.

b1jetmech on March 16, 2010 at 11:16 PM

OK, done with you. Have a good night.

Proud Rino on March 16, 2010 at 11:18 PM

Does Swine sound better to ya’?

b1jetmech on March 16, 2010 at 11:18 PM

I would be nominally offended because that is not kosher.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 11:22 PM

OK, done with you. Have a good night.

Proud Rino on March 16, 2010 at 11:18 PM

Figures.

b1jetmech on March 16, 2010 at 11:31 PM

Ouch. So a 1L?

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Yep.

crr6 on March 16, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Which law school?

slp on March 16, 2010 at 11:34 PM

Now, Levin is president of the Landmark Legal foundation. He is preparing to litigate the Obamacare if it should make it’s way through by the “slaughter” method of just approval a bill without a rolcall vote. What does Liu think of that being such an academic scholar he is?

“political question” prolly wont get cert.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 11:59 PM

That guy looks familiar…
Seven Percent Solution on March 16, 2010 at 1:43 PM

karate kid all grown up?
jbh45 on March 16, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Ancient Chinese secret, huh?
Daggett on March 16, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Confucious say Liu is a commie.
fogw on March 16, 2010 at 2:13 PM

You fellows are an embarrassment to this website. Truly, you should just get the f*ck out of here and let the grown-ups talk.

RobCom on March 17, 2010 at 1:02 AM

Ummm, we’re supposed to be impressed with someone who went to law school? Buwahahahahahahahaha!
Yeah, it’s soooooo hard to become a lawyer. That’s why there are so few of them, right? Oops.

While I have met some good lawyers, too many were ego-maniacal money grubbing whores and a–holes that made Narcissus look humble. Plus, they weren’t anywhere near as bright as they thought they were.

Hard Right on March 17, 2010 at 1:25 AM

I notice the leftists are easily impressed by education. In their minds it’s a substitute for critical thought. As usual they mistake education for actual intelligence and ability to reason.
No surprise since they are good at neither.
All they are doing on this thread is showing you can have a college degree and still be a flaming moron.

Hard Right on March 17, 2010 at 1:33 AM

Not only shouldn’t this marxist never see the 9th Circuit, but his role in law should be forthwith terminated.

He is both dangerous and insipid in his beliefs.

This is the danger of O. Perhaps his nomination will be filibustered. I can only hope. In that I disagree, he doesn’t deserve an up or down vote. He deserves nothing.

JP1986UM on March 17, 2010 at 6:30 AM

To say that corporations of varying stripes have not benifited from different levels of government welfare it ignorant in the extreme. To say that politicians do not use their influence to benifit certain corporations over others is also ignorant.

Corporate welfare is just as dangerous to the free market as individual welfare.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:34 PM

However, the problem is no where near as bad as you wish to believe. Individual welfare costs several hundred times what corporate welfare does. Additionally, the solution to corporate welfare is not to make the govt even more powerful, it’s to take away power from the govt.

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 7:43 AM

Dont cry to me because you dont like lawyers, it is not going to change the reality of the situation on the court.

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 4:44 PM

The fact that you have no problem with lawyers who lie and who distort the plain meanings of words is well known.

The fact that you defend such practice, while alarming, is hardly surprising either. That’s how liberals have alwayss worked.

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 7:45 AM

Thank you. Good to know for the record.

Dark-Star on March 16, 2010 at 4:44 PM

I know that you have already stated that rich people run the country. Do you have any evidence that corporations do as well, or are you just paranoid?

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 7:46 AM

Obama will wait until he can “recess appoint” the clown…and he’ll be good to go without any hearings.

GoldenEagle4444 on March 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Recess appointments are only good until the end of the current congress. If Obama appoints him while congress is away on Easter break, he will be out of a job in January.

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 7:48 AM

What the heck does that mean? Coming from a law student (and nevertheless a troll at that), I expect better grammar and I am just a lowly former English Teacher now graduate student. Sad.

margategop517 on March 16, 2010 at 5:50 PM

It means that those who agree with him get the tongue treatment.

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 7:49 AM

I wonder why the liberal trolls are out in force in this thread?

right4life on March 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Because the ability to re-interpret the constitution to the point where it no longer means anything is how liberals operate. They have to defend their core principles.

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 7:51 AM

Oh boy! Liberal Troll, that is a new one….. *yawn*

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Apparently the only person who believes you aren’t a liberal, is you.

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 7:52 AM

While I have met some good lawyers, too many were ego-maniacal money grubbing whores and a–holes that made Narcissus look humble. Plus, they weren’t anywhere near as bright as they thought they were.

Hard Right on March 17, 2010 at 1:25 AM

I’m sure SquidShark and crr6 have good qualities. Somewhere.

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 7:53 AM

I notice the leftists are easily impressed by education.

Hard Right on March 17, 2010 at 1:33 AM

But only if you get that education at the right school.

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 7:55 AM

I’m sure SquidShark and crr6 have good qualities. Somewhere.

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 7:53 AM

I have a faint glimmer of hope for crr6 … Squiddy, not so much.

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 8:12 AM

I have a faint glimmer of hope for crr6 … Squiddy, not so much.

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 8:12 AM

Well that is encouraging, you have hope for the person who voted for Obama but not the one who had the good sense not to vote for him…makes sense, or something.

Squid Shark on March 17, 2010 at 8:58 AM

Apparently the only person who believes you aren’t a liberal, is you.

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 7:52 AM

I would love to know what makes me a liberal. It would be entertaining if you had anything outside of support for a Federalist solution on gay marriage and the repeal of DADT.

Oh and having the temerity to call Rubio out for what he is, a weasel.

As for this thread, your constant confusion of a statement of judicial realities with support for Obamacare will not be submitted as evidence.

Squid Shark on March 17, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Well that is encouraging, you have hope for the person who voted for Obama but not the one who had the good sense not to vote for him…makes sense, or something.

Squid Shark on March 17, 2010 at 8:58 AM

I didn’t know. I’ll give you more credit then. The reason I have any hope for crr6 is that she comes here. Maybe something someone says will ignite the tungsten filament in that cranial lightbulb of hers.

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 9:04 AM

As for this thread, your constant confusion of a statement of judicial realities with support for Obamacare will not be submitted as evidence.

Squid Shark on March 17, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Ah … know I remember why I had no hope. You seem to believe that the judiciary is infallible. This government is, and has been out of control … ever expanding it’s authority and power beyond the limits placed on it by the Constitution. Any court that blesses that expansion in my opinion is illegitimate.

You also keep forgetting that the court is not the last word in America. Neither is Congress or the President. It’s the people of this country that have the last word and it’s yet to be spoken.

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 9:10 AM

Ah … know now I remember

more coffee …

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 9:12 AM

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 9:04 AM

I was not a hippie in my youth but I was much more liberal. Sometimes it just takes time.

Squid Shark on March 17, 2010 at 9:12 AM

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 9:10 AM

I dont believe the judiciary is infallible, Darwin, you misunderstand. I understand the importance of the judiciary and I understand the futility of depending on Glenn Beck to make my constitutional arguments. (Levin is a little better but occasionally he just dismisses past cases out of hand, which he knows will not fly on the Court).

Scalia is a good guide on this matter, he knows that the best way to win cases is to beat them at their own game. The Common Law is a tricky business, but understanding the case law that goes behind each constitutional issue instead of b&tching about it makes it easier to fight it.

Squid Shark on March 17, 2010 at 9:17 AM

We are not the Netherlands

Squid Shark on March 16, 2010 at 3:57 PM

There was a time in this country where the citizens would not have put up with 90% of what the govt is now doing.

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Oh and having the temerity to call Rubio out for what he is, a weasel.

Squid Shark on March 17, 2010 at 9:02 AM

I keep forgetting, you actually believe that the Senate majority leader has the power to single handedly craft and pass bills.

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 9:20 AM

I wonder if one day we will impeach a bunch of these Obama judges.

WannabeAnglican on March 17, 2010 at 9:25 AM

This guy should be filibustered…PERIOD.

olesparkie on March 17, 2010 at 9:34 AM

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 9:20 AM

Since Rubio has never been in the FL Senate, I havent a clue what you are referring to. But of course, if you are referring to his lack of action as Speaker of the Florida House, that is an example of his ineffectiveness, not his weaselness.

Squid Shark on March 17, 2010 at 9:59 AM

More definitive proof that the 9th Circus Court is nothing but a demonstration of what will happen if we continue to allow Demoncrates to use the tactics that Nanny Fulloshite and others are trying to force down our throats.

Reading the entire Obama Care bill I find that shoving it down our throats, as proposed, will surly kill U.S.. Because, no where in the bill is there a clause of how or when to apply the Heimlich Maneuver.

MSGTAS on March 17, 2010 at 10:41 AM

But of course, if you are referring to his lack of action as Speaker of the Florida House, that is an example of his ineffectiveness, not his weaselness.

Squid Shark on March 17, 2010 at 9:59 AM

So an effective speaker is able to force the body to pass exactly what you want passed.

Gotcha.

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Keep reading what you want, Mark. I am pretty sure that you are being deliberately obtuse at this point.

Squid Shark on March 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Keep reading what you want, Mark. I am pretty sure that you are being deliberately obtuse at this point.

Squid Shark on March 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Nothing obtuse about the obvious, except to those who specialize in avoiding it.

Must be why you decided on a legal career.

I still ask why you believe that the Speaker can force the House to pass the bill that you want?

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 11:18 AM

So an effective speaker is able to force the body to pass exactly what youhe/she wants passed.

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM

^ the point, restated.

Dark-Star on March 17, 2010 at 12:15 PM

I still ask why you believe that the Speaker can force the House to pass the bill that you want?

MarkTheGreat on March 17, 2010 at 11:18 AM

I dont, and I never have, if you dont know that by now, you need reading lessons.

However, if your look at the sessions, such as the special session of 2007, you can see what I mean by a failure of Rubio to exert his influence to accomplish two things in particular:

1) At least try to put a band-aid on FL’s horrid budget situation.

2) Reign in what is now being shown to be one of the most unethical Houses since Reconstruction.

Squid Shark on March 17, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3