|
|
|
|
Senate Battle Over Liu
Nomination Grows More Intense
Part Four of Four By Dave Andrusko As part of Friday's TN&V, I'm updating you on a story we wrote back on April 8. The topic is the nomination of Goodwin Liu to a seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. According to Politico.com, "Goodwin Liu, one of President Barack Obama's most controversial lower court nominees, cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on a partisan 12-7 vote Thursday, signaling a fierce floor fight over one of the more liberal judicial picks of the Obama presidency." In addition to opposition to Liu's views, "His nomination is so controversial in part because he is viewed as a possible future Supreme Court nominee," writes Kasie Hunt.
For background on Liu, I'm
reprinting the April 8th story.
Republican opposition to the nomination of Goodwin Liu for a seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is deep and wide. But the flashpoint for Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is his insistence that Liu omitted a number of controversial writings in his Senate questionnaire.
To no avail Sessions (R-Al.) asked Committee Chair Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to postpone next week's scheduled hearing, charged, "Goodwin Liu's entire record consists primarily of a stunning series of writings and speeches--and yet he failed to disclose dozens of those writings and speeches to the Judiciary Committee." He added in a letter sent to Leahy, "At best, this nominee's extraordinary disregard for the Committee's constitutional role demonstrates incompetence; at worst, it creates the impression that he knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the Committee." For the nominee's part, the Washington Post reported that on Tuesday, "Liu sent 117 items to the committee, a 'supplement' to an earlier questionnaire he filled out about his record, including articles he wrote and events in which he participated, but did not include in his original submission." If you read even some of what Liu has written or said at forums, you are not going to mistake him for a Chief Justice John Roberts clone. In fact, Liu wrote an op-ed just after Roberts was nominated in which he unceremoniously tore into him. In a July 22, 2005, column for Bloomberg, Liu began with what is proving to be heavily ironic, coming from a man whose own nomination has created a firestorm. "Despite his mild manner and Midwestern charm, the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court is a seismic event that threatens to deepen the nation's red-blue divide," Liu wrote. "Instead of choosing a consensus candidate to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, President George W. Bush has opted for a conservative thoroughbred who, if confirmed, will likely swing the court sharply to the right on many critical issues." For pro-lifers, the two most relevant comments were criticisms of Roberts for not supporting "abortion rights." Under the section titled "Roberts' Record," Liu opines, "What we already know from Roberts's record is cause for concern. His legal career is studded with activities unfriendly to civil rights, abortion rights, and the environment." Later, discussing Roberts' role "As a high-ranking lawyer in the Justice Department in the first Bush administration," Liu wrote, "Roberts also co-wrote the government's brief in a 1991 case where the Supreme Court upheld regulations banning federally funded health clinics from providing abortion-related counseling." In case anyone missed where Liu is coming from, he added, "Although Roe v. Wade's guarantee of a woman's right to choose abortion was not at issue in the case, Roberts's brief argued: 'We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.' The Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe in 1992.'" Leahy dismissed Sessions, saying, "Committee members will have had more than seven weeks to review the nominee's record, and two weeks to review the materials submitted to the committee on April 5." He added, "I see no reason to further delay this nominee's opportunity to appear before the committee and respond to the questions its members may have." It's worth noting by way of a final observation that Liu makes no bones about his fervent belief not only in an activist court but also that judicial intervention in order to right what he sees as a societal wrong is a moral imperative. At one forum he told a sympathetic audience, "You know I paid the $9.95 for my high-speed Internet access to the hotel and went on The Federalist Society website last night. Now The Federalist Society will tell you that one of its core principles is that the job of judges is to say what the law is and not what is should be. "Do not believe it." |
