GOP senators might filibuster Obama’s ‘most controversial judicial nominee’ Update: GOP filibuster successful

posted at 11:06 am on May 19, 2011 by Tina Korbe

The Senate votes today on whether to close debate on the controversial nomination of University of California-Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — and GOP senators have indicated they just might block an Obama judicial nominee for the first time:

Senior Republicans launched an all-out push to quash the nomination, urging their conference colleagues to support a GOP-led filibuster.

“(Liu’s) record reflects a carefully honed and calculated philosophy that he developed and advanced over the course of his brief career in the ivory towers of academia and which threatens the American tradition of limited constitutional government,” Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and senior panel member Jeff Sessions of Alabama, wrote in a letter, obtained by Fox, to their GOP colleagues Wednesday.

In a most ominous sign, former GOP members of the so-called “Gang of 14,” who narrowly averted a judicial crisis back in 2005 that nearly shut down the Senate, are lining up against Liu, as well.

That’s a good thing — because, as at least one reporter has suggested, Liu just might be President Obama’s ‘most controversial judicial nominee’ — and that’s saying something, given the president’s many questionable nominations.

Consider judicial nominee Jack McConnell, now a federal district court judge in Rhode Island, who donated $700,000 to Democrats in the two decades before President Obama tapped him for his current position. Or, even better, Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan, who, as we found out yesterday, might have helped to craft a legal defense of Obamacare, yet likely won’t recuse herself from the case against its constitutionality when it comes before the Court.

But Liu just might outdo the whole slew.

For starters, Liu does not even meet the standard for federal judgeships outlined by the American Bar Association, which requires substantial courtroom and trial experience and at least 12 years practicing law. Liu has no experience as a trial lawyer. He hadn’t even been out of law school for 12 years when he was nominated.

Ed Whelan of The Ethics and Public Policy Center corroborates:

Liu’s woeful inexperience compounds his deficiencies of judicial philosophy. He is only 39, and he has even less experience than his age might suggest. He has been a member of the bar for less than eleven years, and he practiced law for less than two years. Under a neutral application of the ABA’s rules — i.e., “a prospective nominee to the federal bench ordinarily should have at least twelve years’ experience in the practice of law,” and “substantial courtroom and trial experience as a lawyer or trial judge is important” — Liu would presumptively receive a “not qualified” rating and be very fortunate to eke out a “qualified.” But somehow the ABA’s process was jiggered to give Liu the ridiculous rating of “well qualified.”

Liu has very little experience, but he definitely has an opinion as to the role of the courts. Here’s Liu himself, in his book ironically titled Keeping Faith with the Constitution:

What we mean by fidelity is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.

Or, again, in a paper entitled “Rethinking Constitutional Welfare Rights“:

The problem for courts is to determine, at the moment of decision, whether our collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree that they can be persuasively crystallized and credibly absorbed into legal doctrine. This difficult task requires keen attention to the trajectory of social norms reflected in public policies, institutions and practices, as well as predictive judgment as to how a judicial decision may help forge or frustrate a social consensus.

Seems to me “the problem for courts” is to determine what the law says. If our “collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree that they can be persuasively crystallized and credibly absorbed into legal doctrine,” then the legislature can enshrine those collective values in new law. Until then, judges have no reason to worry about whether “a judicial decision may help forge or frustrate a social consensus.”

But we have reason to worry about Liu, an evidently activist judge, who, according to Whelan, has eventual Supreme Court aspirations. In general, as the “Gang of 14″ established in 2005, senators should filibuster a nominee only in “extraordinary circumstances.” This qualifies. Democrats only need seven Republicans to keep Liu’s nomination alive. Let’s hope that those GOP senators who’ve indicated they’ll filibuster actually do — and that those senators who vote in Liu’s favor will consider what that will say to those of us who think fidelity to the Constitution means … fidelity to the Constitution.

Update: Republicans this afternoon successfully filibustered Liu’s nomination, defeating the motion to end debate. The motion needed 60 votes to pass, but received just 52 votes.

“This nominee was over the line,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said immediately after the vote on a conference call with bloggers. “It wasn’t even close. If I can’t believe a judge will be faithful to the Constitution, I’m not going to vote for him. … I do think [the filibuster] says to [the president] that Congress is not a rubber stamp. Most Republicans are more reluctant than Democrats to filibuster [but] this nominee did not need to be confirmed.”

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

Given the history Republicans have of not doing what they say they’re going to do, I’m not holding my breath.

gryphon202 on May 19, 2011 at 11:08 AM

’bout time they nix his type. They made sure that W. got few judges in his last year.

honsy on May 19, 2011 at 11:08 AM

I’m waiting for crr666 to explain to me why this DB is a reasonable pick.

Kataklysmic on May 19, 2011 at 11:08 AM

What’s Newt’s take on this?

MeatHeadinCA on May 19, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Today the United States Senate will vote on cloture in the matter of Goodwin Liu. Sixty votes are needed. Call 202-224-3121 and ask for your Senator. Tell him to oppose Goodwin Liu

reshas1 on May 19, 2011 at 11:11 AM

There is no evidence that GOP Senators have spines.

Sir Napsalot on May 19, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Obama wins elections by controlling the vote counters

Obama wins legislative battles by controlling the courts.

Roy Rogers on May 19, 2011 at 11:12 AM

I’d like to hear more about why Liu is “controversial” besides on Grassley’s say so. Or do I have to click on all the links and try to find out for myself … :|

Paul-Cincy on May 19, 2011 at 11:13 AM

He’ll be confirmed.

a capella on May 19, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Dems have scotched several GOP nominees for ideological reasons, often with false charges, including racist ones.

It’s time to play by their rules. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Dusty on May 19, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Sure would be refreshing to see this guy get the boot by the r’s! We have way more than enough of this kind in the courts now, we don’t need any more, period!
L

letget on May 19, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Amen dusty

Estrada comes mind

cmsinaz on May 19, 2011 at 11:16 AM

A watershed moment in my mind. Is the GOP up to the fight to take our country back or have the statist already won?

brtex on May 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Left-wing legal academic with no useful experience for his job appoints left-wing legal academic with no useful experience for his job.

This is the Adult Baby Administration.

JEM on May 19, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Ok graham, mccain, brown and the twins….do not go to the dark side on this vote, for the love all things

cmsinaz on May 19, 2011 at 11:18 AM

10 bucks that DICK Lugar gives him the OK….”didn’t seem that bad to me” he says as he gives us Hoosiers the middle finger.

search4truth on May 19, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Dems have scotched several GOP nominees for ideological reasons, often with false charges, including racist ones.

It’s time to play by their rules. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Dusty on May 19, 2011 at 11:14 AM

We don’t need false charges here. The plain facts are damning enough. Liu is the judicial equivalent of Obama: hardcore leftwing radical with little or no actual experience. His would be a disastrous appointment.

jwolf on May 19, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Obama really is on a crusade of destruction, isn’t he!

OldEnglish on May 19, 2011 at 11:19 AM

The GOP should Estrada this nominee.

Good Lt on May 19, 2011 at 11:19 AM

They will filibuster.
Just like they filibustered don’t ask don’t tell. Oh wait.

Just like they filibustered Kagan. Oh wait.

Just like they filibustered START. Oh wait.

Just like they filibustered porkulus. Oh wait.

There are better odds of me becoming a Senator in 2012 than the GOP actually filibustering anything.

angryed on May 19, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Just what our country needs–more empty promises from the GOP.

Bugler on May 19, 2011 at 11:20 AM

10 bucks that DICK Lugar gives him the OK….”didn’t seem that bad to me” he says as he gives us Hoosiers the middle finger.

search4truth on May 19, 2011 at 11:18 AM

And yet he’s mystified as to why people are lining up to run against him in the GOP primary this year.

teke184 on May 19, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Guy believes in the Constitutional right to transportation. Enough said.

But I’ll say more anyway. Reperations for slavery.

Take him down.

swamp_yankee on May 19, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Both Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, who remain undecided, said no one in the administration has even contacted them about Liu recently

I fail to see the importance of this fact, unless its a coded attempt by the witches of New England to let the WH know they’re willing to vote in favor, as long as they get something in return.

You know, politics.

BobMbx on May 19, 2011 at 11:23 AM

He’s on the 9th circuit. Does it really matter who sits on it? Any case that gets to the 9th is guaranteed to be ruled in favor of the liberals. Whether Liu is on it or not, will make no difference.

If the GOP wants to grow a spine, how about it does so with an appointment that actually matters?

angryed on May 19, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Would love to see an ABA defense of their “well qualified” judgement. Now THAT is ridiculous.

Does this whacko meet even ONE of the criteria ?

deadrody on May 19, 2011 at 11:25 AM

O’bama also nominated a SCOTUS Justice who had never ever been a Judge herself.

That’s Judicial Activism at its finest!

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 11:30 AM

If ever there was a judicial nominee to filibuster, this guy is it. Forget ideology; this guy doesn’t even meet the minimum experience requirements. And they want to give him a lifetime appointment? C’mon. The only question is if the Senate GOPers have the stones to bin this guy. I am a man of faith, but I’ll need to see the roll call vote to believe they’ll filibuster.

rcpjr on May 19, 2011 at 11:31 AM

I don’t think the Dems win this one. According to Byron York on Fox a few minutes ago, the Repubs are ready for “payback” for all the Bush nominees the Dems held up in 2003. This is also a Tea Party issue. Some Dems up for re-election also may not have the stomach for Liu.

cartooner on May 19, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Take him down – that is what the democrats would do to someone not nearly as radical as he, on the other side of the ledger.

Vashta.Nerada on May 19, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Does this whacko meet even ONE of the criteria ?

deadrody on May 19, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Of course, he is a minority and liberal.

rockmom on May 19, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Garbage in, garbage out.

GarandFan on May 19, 2011 at 11:33 AM

For starters, Liu does not even meet the standard for federal judgeships outlined by the American Bar Association, which requires substantial courtroom and trial experience and at least 12 years practicing law. Liu has no experience as a trial lawyer. He hadn’t even been out of law school for 12 years when he was nominated.

Well…no wonder Our Idiot President likes him well enough to appoint him twice. Any guy who is taking a position of major national leadership as his first job must be OK by Obama.

Jaibones on May 19, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Senior Republicans launched an all-out push to quash the nomination, urging their conference colleagues to support a GOP-led filibuster.

All blow and no go.

The RINOs will fold.

davidk on May 19, 2011 at 11:36 AM

What we mean by fidelity is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.

The liberal equivalent of the Divine Right of Kings. The Constitution to them means nothing in itself, but they can cloak their decisions in it to make them unassailable.

Socratease on May 19, 2011 at 11:38 AM

…Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, who remain undecided…

I don’t know how influential the Tea Party is in Maine, but Maine Republicans I hear, are fed up with these two.

cartooner on May 19, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Consider judicial nominee Jack McConnell, now a federal district court judge in Rhode Island, who donated $700,000 to Democrats in the two decades before President Obama tapped him for his current position. Or, even better, Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan, who, as we found out yesterday, might have helped to craft a legal defense of Obamacare, yet likely won’t recuse herself from the case against its constitutionality when it comes before the Court.

I would just like to point out that the examples you provided are probably not very good ones with which to make your point. You cite potential problems with their ethics/conflicts of interest in these examples, but the problem with Liu is with his judicial philosophy. I’m not saying that you can’t have similar problems with Kagan and McConnell’s judicial philosophy, but you didn’t say as much in making your argument.

MJBrutus on May 19, 2011 at 11:39 AM

He’s on the 9th circuit. Does it really matter who sits on it? Any case that gets to the 9th is guaranteed to be ruled in favor of the liberals. Whether Liu is on it or not, will make no difference.

If the GOP wants to grow a spine, how about it does so with an appointment that actually matters?

angryed

I couldn’t disagree more. The man is not qualified for the job. Doesn’t that count anymore? He has Supreme Court aspirations. Getting on the 9th Circuit puts him on that path. He needs to be blocked right NOW! No SC for someone this loony. No fed judgeship for this turd until he goes back and does all the lawyering required for the job!

JAM on May 19, 2011 at 11:39 AM

I fail to see the importance of this fact, unless its a coded attempt by the witches of New England to let the WH know they’re willing to vote in favor, as long as they get something in return.

You know, politics.

BobMbx on May 19, 2011 at 11:23 AM

eee-zakleee

davidk on May 19, 2011 at 11:39 AM

It’s amazing how many of these most-qualified-in-the-entire-nation appointees are so historic. One wouldn’t think population demographics would support that.

rogerb on May 19, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Filibuster this unqualified left-wing piece of lying garbage.

Jaibones on May 19, 2011 at 11:44 AM

The 9th Circuit is already the most radical and the most overturned of the federal district appeals courts. With Liu’s nomination, Obama reveals he thinks that’s a problem with the Supreme Court, not the 9th.

Socratease on May 19, 2011 at 11:44 AM

I support a primary challenge for every Republican that caves on Liu…

ninjapirate on May 19, 2011 at 11:46 AM

I’ll be stunned if they filibuster.

SouthernGent on May 19, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Here is the complete ABA guidelines that includes the lines after the 12 years experience are mentioned:

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/federal_judiciary/federal_judiciary09.pdf

Distinguished accomplishments in the field of law or experience that is similar to in-court trial work—such as appearing before or serving on administrative agencies or arbitration boards, or teaching trial advocacy or other clinical law school courses—may compensate for a prospective nominee’s lack of substantial courtroom experience. In addition, in evaluating a prospective nominee’s professional experience, the Committee may take into consideration whether opportunities for advancement in the profession for women and members of minority groups were limited.

and my guess is they gave him a WQ because of it. Looking over the ABA ratings I can only find 1 or 2 NQ in the last 2 Congresses, so I would take their ratings with a grain of salt.

JeffinSac on May 19, 2011 at 11:46 AM

I fail to see the importance of this fact, unless its a coded attempt by the witches of New England to let the WH know they’re willing to vote in favor, as long as they get something in return.

You know, politics.

BobMbx on May 19, 2011 at 11:23 AM

But that’s so unlikely…

fossten on May 19, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Won’t happen. Terrified of being called “obstructionists” by the NY Times. Will cave.

rrpjr on May 19, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Paralleling the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s dress-down of failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, Liu said in Alito’s America “police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy” and “the FBI may install a camera where you sleep,” and he went on to say in that America “a black man may be sentenced by an all-white jury for killing a white man absent analysis showing discrimination.”

Didn’t he forget to mention one? “In Alito’s America…the police or any individual appearing to be a police officer, or anyone identifying himself or herself as a police officer regardless of the veracity of the identification, may enter an individual’s home without a warrant or any other legal justification and the homemowner may not resist such entry…”
OOOPS…that would be Clinton’s America…my mistake…

Blaise on May 19, 2011 at 11:49 AM

But somehow the ABA’s process was jiggered to give Liu the ridiculous rating of “well qualified.”

Not surprising. Wrong, ridiculous, an abdication of their responsibilities, but not surprising.

iurockhead on May 19, 2011 at 11:51 AM

We don’t need false charges here. The plain facts are damning enough. Liu is the judicial equivalent of Obama: hardcore leftwing radical with little or no actual experience. His would be a disastrous appointment.

[jwolf on May 19, 2011 at 11:18 AM]

I agree. Note I set off the ‘false and racist reasons’ qualifier as an adjectival phrase with the word often. The primary point was ideological reasons, as with Alito, who Liu testified against at the hearing on his confirmation using just this reason.

But let me clarify. I eschew using false and racist attacks on nominees for any position president presents them.

Dusty on May 19, 2011 at 11:51 AM

I’m not a fan of the ABA qualifications, the standards are arbitrary and have no relations to reality.

That said, he’s not fit for the bench, it seems to me like an effort to one day push an Asian to the Supreme Court. Obama’s picks have been about diversity, not qualification.

amazingmets on May 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM

What we mean by fidelity is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.

In other words….The Constitution doesn’t MEAN WHAT IT SAYS, it means what Leftists like Liu want it to mean…on any given day.

As for the nominee’s lack of qualification: he’s at least as qualified for the Ninth Circuit as his nominator is for POTUS. Scary….ain’t it.

tgharris on May 19, 2011 at 11:58 AM

[jwolf on May 19, 2011 at 11:18 AM]

I’d note, jwolf, I posted a comment right about when you posted that which was exclusively in line with your point, and in response to a Paul-Cincy request, but for some d$mn reason it’s gone into moderation.

It would be nice if that got taken care of before it shows up when two pages back and becomes totally irrelevant to this post.

Dusty on May 19, 2011 at 11:58 AM

cue the guy who always posts that the GOP will Betray You. Seems like a safe bet.

james23 on May 19, 2011 at 12:01 PM

[ Paul-Cincy on May 19, 2011 at 11:13]

Liu’s nomination has been around for a year and a half. Here’s some thing to help you catch up, via Volokh. I just yanked them from a Bing of their site.

Here’s one:
Judge Goodwin Liu?

Here’s another:
Goodwin Liu’s Incomplete Questionnaire

A third:
Goodwin Liu on the Second Amendment

Lastly:
McCain, Isakson, and Graham to Support Liu Filibuster

Those would give you the tenor of the reasons for opposing him.

I’m reposting this with mods to try to get it through without getting caught in moderation.

Dusty on May 19, 2011 at 12:01 PM

As Miguel Estrada has said of Liu, “The one thing that ought to be reasonably clear … is that someone who personally contributed to the sorry state of the confirmation process, by jumping in the mud pit with both feet and flinging the mud with both hands, is not well positioned to demand that standards be elevated solely for his benefit.”

J_Crater on May 19, 2011 at 12:02 PM

If the GOP wants to grow a spine, how about it does so with an appointment that actually matters?

angryed on May 19, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Two things – one is – we don’t need this guy ANYWHERE on any court. We need less of these guys in the federal judiciary – not more.

Second thing is – approve him now – and he’ll be back in three years for a SCOTUS nomination. Soooo – you’re not only giving this guy the experience he needs for SCOTUS – but you’re also giving him CREDIBILITY by sactioning him for this court.

As an example – Justice Roberts was heavily opposed by Dims – but the GOP was able to successfully argue that the very Senators who didn’t want to approve him for SCOTUS – had overwhelmingly approved him only a few years earlier for the federal job he held.

HondaV65 on May 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM

I couldn’t disagree more. The man is not qualified for the job. Doesn’t that count anymore? He has Supreme Court aspirations. Getting on the 9th Circuit puts him on that path. He needs to be blocked right NOW! No SC for someone this loony. No fed judgeship for this turd until he goes back and does all the lawyering required for the job!

JAM on May 19, 2011 at 11:39 AM

My point is don’t die on this hill since it’s the 9th and the 9th is so left already it doesn’t matter. Fight a nominee where it will matter like the 4th or 5th which used to be pretty conservative but is no longer.

angryed on May 19, 2011 at 12:07 PM

As an example – Justice Roberts was heavily opposed by Dims – but the GOP was able to successfully argue that the very Senators who didn’t want to approve him for SCOTUS – had overwhelmingly approved him only a few years earlier for the federal job he held.

HondaV65 on May 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM

The Dims would do that anyway. It’s what they do. Doesn’t matter if Oliver Wendell Holmes was up for nomination to traffic court, they’d call him unqualified (and racist of course).

angryed on May 19, 2011 at 12:10 PM

[angryed on May 19, 2011 at 12:07 PM]

Please! The objective here is not to die for our political position but to make the other guy die for his political position.

(HT: Patton, RIP)

Dusty on May 19, 2011 at 12:14 PM

What we mean by fidelity is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.

What we mean by fidelity is that marriage should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its vows to the challenges and conditions of each person in every succeeding marriage.

What we mean by fidelity is that “Right Turn on Red After Stop” should be interpreted in ways that adapt relativity principles in which the conditions of our global society spinning through space make it impossible to stop in every succeeding intersection.

Commies always lie.

lacerta on May 19, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Judge Robert Bork explains liberal judges in one of his books. He rightly explains that conservative judges first consult the Constitution and attempt to find any part that would address the issue. If they cannot then they say the document does not address it and therefore send it to the people and the congress.
Liberal judges look at the issue at hand and if it is part of the left’s agenda they will search the Constitution for sone obscure phrase to justify supporting it. In other words, liberal judges work everything backwards.

Conservatives thereby limit their own power with the Constitution. Liberal judges want no limits to their power so wish to throw the Constitution aside by making it a “living” document. With that Constitutional theory, what limits the power of a SCOTUS having five judges like Liu? Nothing!
It is tyranny by the judiciary.

artman1746 on May 19, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Holy smoke Batman, is the Losership really developing a gonad? (singular — having a pair would be asking too much too soon)

Better call your bud’s in the TSA to check it out next time the Loserhip flies home for a weekend. :)

drfredc on May 19, 2011 at 12:18 PM

They will filibuster.
Just like they filibustered don’t ask don’t tell. Oh wait.

Just like they filibustered Kagan. Oh wait.

Just like they filibustered START. Oh wait.

Just like they filibustered porkulus. Oh wait.

There are better odds of me becoming a Senator in 2012 than the GOP actually filibustering anything.

angryed on May 19, 2011 at 11:19 AM

When those issues came up, Republicans had only 40 or 41 Senators, so they either COULDN’T filibuster or would lose if one RINO wimped out.

Now, Republicans have 47 Senators, and the new ones who replaced Democrats (with the possible exception of Kirk of IL) are unlikely to vote with the Dems. Sen. McConnell needs to pick up the phone, and line up his troops–he can win a filibuster if he loses 6 votes or less.

Besides, the Senate has more important things to do, like what to do about the debt ceiling.

Steve Z on May 19, 2011 at 12:19 PM

O’bama also nominated a SCOTUS Justice who had never ever been a Judge herself.

That’s Judicial Activism at its finest!

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Have we forgotten about Harriet Miers already?

hicsuget on May 19, 2011 at 12:20 PM

GOP senators have indicated they just might block an Obama judicial nominee for the first time…

Please, GOP Senators, filibuster this guy! Please do it. Liu is not even hiding his Communist views. Nor is Obama, for that matter. We should work very hard to at least stop the ongoing influx into the Judiciary of these Leftist-Times-Ten radicals, of which Liu is one.

Lourdes on May 19, 2011 at 12:23 PM

On this Kagan issue…

Or, even better, Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan, who, as we found out yesterday, might have helped to craft a legal defense of Obamacare, yet likely won’t recuse herself from the case against its constitutionality when it comes before the Court.

…how can this be allowed to stand? I mean by that, how can this be even allowed to proceed by the Supreme Court, if Kagan DOES NOT recuse herself? There has to be some process in place (which I, of course, am not aware of, thus, my question here) that would REQUIRE her to recuse herself and if she refuses, to hold her in contempt of the Court.

Lourdes on May 19, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Liu is the judicial equivalent of Obama: hardcore leftwing radical with little or no actual experience.

jwolf on May 19, 2011 at 11:18 AM

That didn’t stop Elena Kagan’s confirmation, so I don’t hold out too much hope.

Sir Napsalot on May 19, 2011 at 12:26 PM

I’m sure that the WH will argue that he is “uniquely qualified” (ie “we can count on him to assist us in our unholy power grab and subsquent enslavement of the American people to our will”).

disa on May 19, 2011 at 12:28 PM

angryed on May 19, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Two things – one is – we don’t need this guy ANYWHERE on any court. We need less of these guys in the federal judiciary – not more.

Second thing is – approve him now – and he’ll be back in three years for a SCOTUS nomination. Soooo – you’re not only giving this guy the experience he needs for SCOTUS – but you’re also giving him CREDIBILITY by sactioning him for this court.

As an example – Justice Roberts was heavily opposed by Dims – but the GOP was able to successfully argue that the very Senators who didn’t want to approve him for SCOTUS – had overwhelmingly approved him only a few years earlier for the federal job he held.

HondaV65 on May 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM

@ Honda, you are exactly right.

Liu should never be confirmed to any place in our Judiciary. To ANY office, position, whatever.

His views/positions are so extremely anti-Constitution in principle and politics, he should NEVER be allowed to join the Judiciary. Just never.

The GOP has to stop this guy now.

Lourdes on May 19, 2011 at 12:28 PM

I’m sure that the WH will argue that he is “uniquely qualified” (ie “we can count on him to assist us in our unholy power grab and subsquent enslavement of the American people to our will”).

disa on May 19, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Obama could just as well have nominated and laud the ‘qualifications’ of Ahmadinajad to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Truly, the outrage posed by Liu is clearly discernible to so many Americans — even as to lay persons, most of us — as to Liu as being that absurd, except to Obama and others associated, which reveals if not substantiates their outrageous views.

Lourdes on May 19, 2011 at 12:31 PM

That didn’t stop Elena Kagan’s confirmation, so I don’t hold out too much hope.

[Sir Napsalot on May 19, 2011 at 12:26 PM]

True, but not only did Kagan not let her mask slip much, she didn’t tear all her clothes off and run around naked the way Liu has.

Dusty on May 19, 2011 at 12:32 PM

and GOP senators have indicated they just might block an Obama judicial nominee for the first time:

what spine the GOP has! could have filibustered when we had 41, but nooooooo.

effers

Branch Rickey on May 19, 2011 at 12:39 PM

What we mean by fidelity is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.

In other words….The Constitution doesn’t MEAN WHAT IT SAYS, it means what Leftists like Liu want it to mean…on any given day.(…)

tgharris on May 19, 2011 at 11:58 AM

That didn’t stop Elena Kagan’s confirmation, so I don’t hold out too much hope.

[Sir Napsalot on May 19, 2011 at 12:26 PM]

BOTH Kagan and Sotomayor both were clear in public testimony (Heaven only knows what the brutal reality of their views in private actually are by comparison) that they think the Constitution “should be” modified and even subjugated (Sotomayor is outrageous in these views, shared in testimony) or held in subservience to “international law” or the laws of other nations. And that (both of them swore) the Constitution “should be” “changed” to “accommodate” or “reflect” “changing cultural views” in the U.S.

They blatantly swore NOT to uphold the Constitution in their “beliefs” about the Constitution, as to their judicial philosophy. They were confirmed despite this.

I hope that recorded history makes note of this ongoing betrayal of their confirmational oaths that followed, when compared with what their public sworn testimony prior to those oaths revealed. They both simply denied their willingness or determination to enforce and uphold the Constitution as it exists, or, at least, to accept the Constitution as having integrity as it exists, proclaiming it in need of being changed to, basically, adapt to “other”.

Liu’s ideas go even farther than that, unfortunately. It seems that to today’s Left the U.S. Constitution is their barricade which they ‘must’ destroy, one hammer at a time.

Lourdes on May 19, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Obama’s picks have been about diversity, not qualification.

amazingmets on May 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Like his own life stories…

But, on the other hand, Obama USES “diversity” to proliferate Communism, his variety of such. He USES race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, or exploits such, to accomplish what he has in mind, his Marxist-Communist erosion of the U.S. as a Republic with a Capitalist economy.

So he may pose as representing “diversity” but make sure you look more closely at what his other hand is doing.

Some film directors will hire jugglers or other street-level entertainment to work on certain blocks in urban environs in order to draw the population away from an area in which the directors want to film “less populated” or less busy conditions.

Obama does that with the “diversity” thing, if you consider the “diversity” issue as the juggler.

Lourdes on May 19, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Quash it!

WisCon on May 19, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Be sure to trot out this radical next time your Lib friend breaks out the “Obama is a moderate!” schtick.

visions on May 19, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Obama’s picks have been about diversity, not qualification.

amazingmets on May 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM

His picks have been about ideology, and there are plenty of candidates whose views would promote the trampling of the Consitution which he supports. He just chooses to kill two birds with one stone by selecting “diversity” candidates, because then he can play the race card.

It worked for him, he figures, and it will work for his nominees.

disa on May 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Although in all fairness, Asians are not considered a preferred minority by the left.

disa on May 19, 2011 at 1:01 PM

True, but not only did Kagan not let her mask slip much, she didn’t tear all her clothes off and run around naked the way Liu has.

Dusty on May 19, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Ewwwwww…….

Mental pictures of either one of them like that should be qualified as torture.

Sir Napsalot on May 19, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Although in all fairness, Asians are not considered a preferred minority by the left.

disa on May 19, 2011 at 1:01 PM

The Left likes to pretend Asians don’t exist when arguing policy. That’s because Asians in America nullify their “institutionalized racism” worldview, as pointed out many times by Thomas Sowell & others.

visions on May 19, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Please! The objective here is not to die for our political position but to make the other guy die for his political position.

(HT: Patton, RIP)

Dusty on May 19, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Heh. I just wish we would really do that (speaking of political death only, of course). And for the record, I completely agree with your earlier point — there’s absolutely no call for our side to hold back on fair but critical argument when the lefties routinely use deliberately imflammatory and unfair argument.

Liu is a dreadfully bad candidate.

jwolf on May 19, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Both Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, who remain undecided, said no one in the administration has even contacted them about Liu recently.

I fail to see the importance of this fact, unless its a coded attempt by the witches of New England to let the WH know they’re willing to vote in favor, as long as they get something in return.

You know, politics.

BobMbx on May 19, 2011 at 11:23 AM

The Fair Ladies of Maine have made it clear in the past that they are very open to schmoozing from the White House, and they will do practically anything for some face-time on the liberal old networks.

slickwillie2001 on May 19, 2011 at 1:32 PM

We do not need any more unqualified incompetents in any federal office!!!

landlines on May 19, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Not only is his opinion of the Constitution convoluted, those excerpts demonstrate his writing style is, too. No wonder his book is ranked #241,858 (hardcover) and #1,977,128 (paperback) on Amazon. Heh.

KS Rex on May 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM

fidelity to the Constitution means … fidelity to the Constitution.

Outmoded concept for the gun-toting, bible-thumping, truck-driving, cousin-humping rubes from W. VA and other hillbilly states.

For the sophisticated erudite left the Constitution is a progressive living thing.

Schadenfreude on May 19, 2011 at 2:00 PM

I fail to see the importance of this fact, unless its a coded attempt by the witches of New England to let the WH know they’re willing to vote in favor, as long as they get something in return.

You know, politics.

BobMbx on May 19, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Olympia requires another private luncheon with the president so she can swoon before the cameras again.

Newt’s on Limbaugh right now trying to rehabilitate himself. Rush so far doesn’t seem disposed to pull the fork out–I just heard a very heavy sigh.

SukieTawdry on May 19, 2011 at 2:14 PM

You’d think even partisanship wouldn’t be enough to get a legislator to overlook a guy who obviously intends to usurp legislative authority from the bench.

Murf76 on May 19, 2011 at 2:14 PM

No faith in Republican leaders to do anything close to whats appropriate or even a whisper of what they say they are going to do, period.

Koa on May 19, 2011 at 2:30 PM

You’d think even partisanship wouldn’t be enough to get a legislator to overlook a guy who obviously intends to usurp legislative authority from the bench.

Murf76 on May 19, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I’ve often made the same argument, but for many liberals, it seems, having their agenda realized trumps having their authority usurped. In fact, they go out of their way to find liberal, activist appointees. They’ve, perhaps, given up trying to legislate their way to the European-style social democracy they so would love to have here. And besides, the Constitution as written is such a bother and not at all conducive to reaching their goals.

SukieTawdry on May 19, 2011 at 2:44 PM

According to Yahoo News the fillibuster held. Only 52 votes to end the fillibuster and give Liu a vote.

I’d say he’s done. So much for their “dream Supreme Court nominee”.

deadrody on May 19, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Politico:

Senate Republicans staged the first successful filibuster of a judicial nominee since 2005 on Thursday, dealing a blow to the Obama administration on the long-stalled nomination of Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Only one Republican joined Democrats Thursday in supporting Liu, who needed 60 votes to break a filibuster. Meanwhile, 52 Democrats voted ‘yes’ to open debate on the 39-year-old f University of California, Berkeley professor’s nomination. One Democrat voted no. The final vote was 52-43.

The filibuster will be met with disappointment from both progressives and Asian-American groups who advocated for Liu and hoped to see him seated on the Western court that covers a region of the country with a significant Asian-American population. Liu even received the support from some prominent conservative legal figures, including Ken Starr and John Yoo.

Who was the one lone Republican siding with the Dems? Hint: she’s from Sarah Palin’s state.

BTW, isn’t it hilarious that the Left would try and use the evil Ken Starr as a “character witness” for Liu?

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 2:57 PM

More from Politico:

In one of the most striking floor speeches, Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia laid out his case for why he would not be able to vote to confirm Liu if debate opened on the nominee, though Webb did vote to break the filibuster Thursday.

Webb took issue with some of Liu’s opinions on affirmative action and provided an anecdote about a Virginia businessman who had built a company despite his poor upbringing in the Appalachian regions of the state.

“Intellect in and of itself does not always give a person wisdom, nor does it guarantee good judgment, and the root word of judgment is, of course, judge,” Webb said Wednesday. “And that is our duty today, to decide whether Professor Liu’s almost complete lack of practical legal experience, coupled with his history of intemperate, politically charged statements, allow us a measure of comfort and predictability as to whether he would be fair and balanced while sitting in one of the highest courts in the land.”

Ouch! BTW, Politico also says Liu is now officially Toast.

This is likely the end of Liu’s bid for the spot on the Ninth Circuit. Liu made the rounds on the Hill Wednesday, meeting with senators and administration officials in a last-ditch P.R. effort to salvage his bid.

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 2:57 PM

I can’t believe Lisa M. She must be a bitter, bitter woman to do this because Liu is as Leftist as they come. Voting for him takes her out of RINO territory and into the Left.

And what’s with Hatch voting Present? No backbone?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267667/gop-blocks-liu-andrew-stiles

Senate Republicans have successfully filibustered the nomination of Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The final vote on cloture was 52 to 43, with one Senator (Orrin Hatch of Utah) voting “present,” well short of the 60 votes required to end a filibuster. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) voted yes, while Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) voted no. Sens. Bauchus, Hutchison, Moran and Vitter did not vote.

See here for a great outline of the case against Liu.

“The filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check.”

– Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (May 18, 2005)

INC on May 19, 2011 at 3:03 PM

“The filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check.”

– Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (May 18, 2005)

INC on May 19, 2011 at 3:03 PM

In the words of crr6: “LOL”.

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Why are all the words the color Red in this post?

portlandon on May 19, 2011 at 3:16 PM

I don’t understand the problem.

Liu seems perfectly qualified to be on the 9th Circus Court of Appeals… at least as qualified as the ringleader and other Clowns in that Circus.

Oh, Circuit… does anyone call it that?

gekkobear on May 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2