Goodwin Liu
President Obama's latest attempt to put a leftist ideologue on the federal bench is under attack by Republicans-and for good reason.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/19/gop-track-block-obama-judicial-nominee-first-time
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."
Do you think this guy can be a fair and impartial judge?
As much as I lament the fact that this guy is sitting up there at UC Beserkley teaching our kids, he would do far more damage on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is already the joke of the federal court system.
I think his characterization of Alito is fair and accurate. Alito was not a suitable nominee for the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteI am bothered by the philosophy that the constitution is infinitely elastic, and the critique that Liu believes it is MAY be valid. If it is, I wouldn't vote to confirm him either.
Not allowing an up-or-down vote is a dangerous game though. Republicans backed up the federal courts by refusing to vote on many of Clinton's nominees, Democrats did the same for many of Bush's nominees. It seems Republicans are more willing to threaten the "nuclear option" of changing the rules when THEY have the upper hand, than Democrats are, which is too bad. Democrats should stop being so spineless.
The proper solution, of course, is for the President and members of the Judiciary Committee from both parties, and party leadership, to communicate in advance and define a pool of people that everyone can live with. That would also give some protection to the independence of the judiciary, and keep vacancies filled efficiently.
Should a man who testified against a sitting judge become a sitting judge? Interesting question. It would be best if strong advocates of certain schools of thought stuck with the advocacy bar, while more dispassionate legal scholars were the primary pool for judges. Those who are thinking of being a judge should not be the ones testifying about current or potential future colleagues. Is this feasible? Hard to say.