Posted on 04/06/2010 2:12:01 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
A Washington truism: to conservatives, potentially troublesome judicial appointments justify immediate action no matter how injurious to the smooth functioning of a legislative body. It's been this way since Roe, as Republicans have grasped how the subtle formalism of American life can be influenced by judicial rulings. And so Senate Republicans are holding up the nomination of Goodwin Liu, ..
Liu presents a classic dilemma for intellectually honest conservatives: he is undeniably brilliant, undeniably qualified to serve, has a great story behind him (son of immigrants ..) , was a Rhodes scholar, went to Stanford, Yale Law) respected by colleagues bearing various ideologies -- and he is unabashedly .. a judicial liberal.
The bill of goods against Liu is familiar: he is an outspoken advocate for the theory of a living Constitution and has an expansive interpretation of the 14th amendment. Republicans distributed parts of an essay Liu wrote .. : "For too long, liberals, progressives ... have been defensive about how the Constitution should be interpreted. But an examination of the document itself and the way its principles have been applied over time reveals that the progressive view is in fact the one that has prevailed." Manna to the ears of liberals, of course, who also appreciate how Liu has taken public stands on issues ranging from health care to same-sex marriage.
...
It's obvious why conservatives don't want Liu on the bench. It's also clear that the prevailing theory that elections have consequences when it comes to judicial nominations is not particularly viable these days.
There are a few other reasons why Liu is not acceptable: he does not like Samuel Alito and made this clear during Alito's nomination to the Court. He is also extremely ... shall we say, charming. Articles laud his Midwestern folksy demeanor; ..
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
I know this is only the 9th circus but..
To him, the Constitution is effectively so much toilet paper.
Liu is a Marxist thug in a $3000 silk suit.
Obviously Ambinder never heard of Miguel Estrada...He wasn’t the son of immigrants, he is an immigrant. He graduated with high honors from Harvard, clerked for Anthony Kennedy, and was vastly more qualified for a judgeship on the circuit court level than the likes of Sonia Sotomayer. He was opposed by the Dems precisely because he was a minority! They feared a conservative Hispanic on the Supreme Court would undermine their whoring out to the illegal immigrant community in return for votes for Dems.
a modern day willie brown, eh? not good.
weasels are the last thing we need to let loose in the legal system.
Yeah, but he was really cool in Kill Bill 1 and 2.
parsy, who wonders how many of the Crazy 88’s lived. . .
Where have I heard this over-used story before?
- Need for diversity
- young and “brilliant” minority
- product of all the right schools,
- conservatives are “scared” of his intellect and touch with the common folk,
- smarter than the “conservative” Scalia, who is, of course, “nasty.”
Seems this plot-line, having worked once, will be used in a thousand liberal fairy tales told to us by the MSM in coming years.
That is to say, he is unqualified.
A racist who believes whitey owes reparations....
Very nice comparison to Miguel Estrada. Shows the rank hypocrisy at work here.
“Undeniably qualified”??? He’s 39 years old and appears to have, what, a year of work as an actual lawyer? That makes him “undeniably qualified” for the Court of Appeals? Really? Did the author make the same argument for Estrada and Clarence Thomas? Riiiight . . .
Then add in the fact that he conveniently “forgot” to disclose OVER 100 documents detailing his most radical views!
God help us if Obama is able to load the courts with such radicals.
>Liu presents a classic dilemma for intellectually honest conservatives: he is undeniably brilliant, undeniably qualified to serve, has a great story behind him (son of immigrants ..) , was a Rhodes scholar, went to Stanford, Yale Law) respected by colleagues bearing various ideologies — and he is unabashedly .. a judicial liberal.
>
>The bill of goods against Liu is familiar: he is an outspoken advocate for the theory of a living Constitution
The “Living Constitution” theory invalidates the claim that he is “undeniably qualified to serve.”
That stance is like saying that the government has every right to come into a pre-existing contract and alter it; something the Constitution prohibits. {The Constitution itself prohibits the impairment of contracts.}
Would you or any company agree to sign a legally-binding contract that a third party can alter at-will? Moreover, would you or any company enter into a legally binding contract that the other party can alter at will?
Then why do you propose to let the Government alter, at will, a binding contract? You say the Constitution gives/grants/recognizes the right to “peaceably assemble” and “and to petition the Government” ... NOT ANY MORE.
BARF ALERT
Only been a lawyer for 4 years? Hell he’s unqualified to serve as a magistrate regardless of his supposed brilliance. He probably would freeze up in court during the opening statement if he ever had the privilege of trying or defending a case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.