Bizarre, Congress, Politics, Society

Liu Confirmation Hearing Erupts Into Partisan Fight Over Experience and Philosophy

The long-awaited judicial confirmation hearing today of Berkeley Law Professor Goodwin Liu erupted into open warfare today as Republicans attacked Liu on his background and perceived bias. I discussed the confirmation fight on the segment below of Rachel Maddow.

Liu promised to keep an open mind and not pre-judge cases from a liberal perspective, but Republicans attacked him for his liberal views, particularly his interpretation of the Constitution. One quote often raised by the GOP was:

“The question … is not how the Constitution would have been applied at the founding, but rather how it should be applied today … in light of changing needs, conditions and understandings of our society.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., criticized Liu for his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He then attacked Liu on his lack of experience, asking “Have you argued any case before the Supreme Court or the court of appeals?”

Liu has never argued before the Supreme Court and only argued once before an appellate court.

However, arguing before the Supreme Court is hardly a criteria for judicial confirmation since only a small percentage of nominees have appeared before the Court. Such arguments have little to do with the lawyers but the cases and the interest of justices in a given issue at a given time. If Supreme Court argument were a criteria, ninety-eight percent of the GOP nominees would have failed.

Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. D-Vt., seemed genuinely ticked. He and other Democrats agreed to accept claims of impartiality from conservative GOP nominees. Yet, his colleagues are unwilling to accept the same assurance from Democratic nominees.

The hearing occurs in the aftermath of the withdrawal of Dawn Johnsen who was all but abandoned by the Obama Administration, here, and opposed by Democrats like Senator Ben Nelson over her opposition to torture policies. Liu will be the latest test of whether the White House will support a liberal for such positions.

Liu has a remarkable resume:

— an Associate Dean and Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). —- clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
— clerked for Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
— special assistant to the deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Education
— senior program officer for higher education at the Corporation for National Service (AmeriCorps).
— Rhodes Scholar
— Board of Trustees of Stanford University
— Chair of the Board of Directors of the American Constitution Society
— B.S., Stanford University (1991)
— M.A., Oxford University (1993)
–J.D., Yale Law School (1998)

He reminds me of Michael McConnell who was confirmed in the Bush Administration and served as a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from 2002 until 2009. McConnell was brilliant and conservative. He was confirmed and so to should be Liu.

There is also an interesting comparison to Brett Kavanaugh who was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals on May 30, 2006. He also clerked on the court of appeals and the Supreme Court like Liu. He also had limited litigation experience. From 1994 to 1997 and for a period in 1998, he was Associate Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr. Judge Kavanaugh was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C., from 1997 to 1998 and again from 1999 to 2001. From 2001 to 2003, Judge Kavanaugh served as Associate Counsel and then as Senior Associate Counsel to the President.

Then there was the nomination of David Bunning, the son of Sen. Jim Bunning. David Bunning, 35, was an assistant U.S. attorney in Covington with a razor thin resume. He was rated as “not qualified” by the ABA due to his lack of experience but still confirmed unanimously by the Senate, here.

Then there was Michael Wallace who received a unanimous “not qualified” rating during the Bush Administration. He was supported by the GOP but eventually withdrew under opposition, here.

This is not to say that the ABA rating should be treated as dispositive either way. Academics often have difficulty on experience. The ABA gave Ronald Reagan’s judicial nominees Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook “qualified/not qualified” ratings. Posner is arguably one of the greatest legal minds of his generation and Easterbrook is widely respected for the depth of this intellect and knowledge on the bench. Both are conservative but the bench is richer with their contributions. The same is true with Liu. If his career and writings are any measure, his contribution to the body of jurisprudence on the Ninth Circuit would be extraordinary.

For the full story, click here.

53 thoughts on “Liu Confirmation Hearing Erupts Into Partisan Fight Over Experience and Philosophy”

  3. Adam Savage (of The Mythbusters) gave a talk where he cited an interesting quote:

    “Evil is a little man afraid for his job.”*

    And, so, we have the tiny Jeff Sessions making a fool of himself in order to play to his dim-witted base. He’d rather have our Appeals and Supreme courts filled with dolts for his own political gain (i.e. keeping his job) than do what’s best for the nation.

    Similarly, we will continue to hear from Mitch McConnell claiming that the proposed financial reform bill will encourage future bank bailouts from the federal government. He’s willing to stand up in front of news cameras and say something that’s very simply totally false in order to keep his job.

    While we’re at it, let’s not forget why President Obama has failed to crack down on torture, warrantless wiretaps and similar crimes. Yep – worried about loosing his job.

    (* It turns out that the quote is from Roy Scheider’s character in the movie Blue Thunder.)

  5. “Blithering bags of hot air that deserve only the worst things that can happen to a human !!”

    *****************

    Would that be election to the Senate, or forced attendance at Sarah Plains speeches?

  6. It never gets old watching/listening to these pompous republican southern ‘gentlemen’ try over and over and over to make sure we get the point that they THINK they are so world wise, have broad experience across all areas of existence, that have been or may be, in all areas of the human experience. That they know thru all-seeing wisdom and divine gifts, all that may effect us/them in all possible future iterations of our possible existences, regardless of the branches our futures may take… ONLY they, the strict, literal constructionist, that leave NOTHING open to influence of the possible human interactions or happenings or unpredictable or uncontrollable situations that may occur ever in our various future existences, and ONLY they can interpret the LAW..

    These people are BUFFOONS !! Blithering bags of hot air that deserve only the worst things that can happen to a human !!

  7. “Remember that I favored Adams so it gave me pleasure to quietly say, no, Mr. President, you triumphed in the end. I like to believe, although Adams would have publically decried my quiet words as petty, secretly, he would have enjoyed them, for he could be somewhat petty himself.”

    ********************

    Neither man triumphed. We still fight their philosophical battles today; this blog being but one front. The only victor in the clash of these men of dissimilar temperament and comparable intellect was the Nation, itself, as both held identical aspirations for her success and prosperity.

  8. Blouise:

    The Lester Cappon compilation is the best being in continuous print since 1959 with helpful footnotes and wonderful notes.

    Here’s a little gift:

  9. mespo,

    I am a big fan of John Adams (I like my men prickly and argumentative). I always found the relationship between Adams and Jefferson fascinating as it ebbed and flowed over the years of their lives. I can’t imagine 2 more opposite men coming together to help create the masterpiece we call our nation.

    I must admit that when I learned of Adams’ last words a thrill went through me, for although he thought Jefferson had outlived him, he was wrong. Remember that I favored Adams so it gave me pleasure to quietly say, no, Mr. President, you triumphed in the end. I like to believe, although Adams would have publically decried my quiet words as petty, secretly, he would have enjoyed them, for he could be somewhat petty himself.

    I have a book here … somewhere … that was given to me as a Christmas gift several years ago containing their letters. I think it is time for a reread. The older one gets the more Jefferson and Adams have to give!

  10. Could not put a dollar amount for what this layman learns here,Thanks all.

  11. Blouise:

    It’s a common error to dismiss Jefferson for his conflicted position on slavery versus economic survival. Unfortunately, that denies us the wisdom of this giant of the Revolution. Recall that this letter was written near the end of his life (d. July 4,1826) to Mr. Pleasants who was the editor of The Lynchburg Virginian, a fairly influential newspaper of the time. Jefferson knew it would be published.

    If you would like some profound reading, take a gander at the exchange of letters between the two former antagonists, Thos. Jefferson and John Adams, when the great men were in a contemplative mood just before their passing. Adams’ last thought on his death bed was, Thomas Jefferson survives. Sadly or ironically, Jefferson had died a few hours earlier on the same day as his old nemesis and newfound friend-exactly 50 years to the day from the birth of the Nation.

  12. “The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself.”[emphasis mine, mespo].

    =================================================================
    mespo,

    I’m one of those who tends to take Jefferson for granted or get sidetracked by his slave-owning policies … until I read a sentence like the one you emphasized … then I sit back in my chair, shake my head, and mutter under my breath, “Wow, what a mind that man had!”

  13. AY:

    Indeed it was, you pun-smith. I told you they should have nominated JT. Think of all the great ties we’d get to see from the bench!

  15. I agree JT’s comments were prescient on the upcoming Supreme Court battle and the leveling of judicial talent in the courts. On a side note, I really liked JT’s choice of ties too; Liu’s not so much.

  17. Let’s see . . .

    Politics.

    versus

    An unusually cunning yet amorphous boneless and spineless tentacled creature that pulls creatures into its cruel beak like maw and eats them alive when not stealing things it doesn’t really need and cannot use properly.

    I fail to see how your link is OT, EC.

  19. The ABA gave Ronald Reagan’s judicial nominees Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook “qualified/not qualified” ratings. Posner is arguably one of the greatest legal minds of his generation and Easterbrook is widely respected for the depth of this intellect and knowledge on the bench.
    ***********************

    Anyone with knowledge of the works of Posner would and could quickly surmise the same.

    Come of give this guy a break. Why do they have to make the judicial branch an arm and leg of the legislative and executive. All the Constitution says with the advice and consent of the Senate. Nothing about the BS going on by both sides.

  20. “whereas an openly stupid senator is just par for the course.”

    So sad yet so true yet so entertaining in that same way NASCAR is entertaining.

    Most people are watching for the wrecks and don’t really care who wins.

    Liu seems to be the kind of guy we should all want on the bench, but the corollary to the previous statement would be that only some of us cares who wins and would rather avoid wrecks when possible. Which is also sad but true yet in a different way.

Comments are closed.