By a vote of 52-43, the U.S. Senate has failed to invoke cloture on the nomination of radical leftist Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, effectively ending his nomination. Liu is so liberal that he would move even the famously liberal 9th Circuit to the left, as I argued in a piece for Human Events in 2010.
Liu believes the Constitution confers a right to welfare, to health care, to some level of income, and that judge should use their power to redistribute each of these things as the judge sees fit. Liu believes that a judge should rule based on how he perceives current social norms rather than based on the law. And he believes that an American judge should make decisions based on international law.
Or, as the Cato Institute put it, "If You Liked Obamacare, You'll Love Goodwin Liu."
As bad as the nominations of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were, Liu is, remarkably, in a league of his own when it comes to an utter disdain for the meaning and intent of the Constitution and our Founders.
Let's hope we never hear about Mr. Liu again outside of left-wing academic circles.
Our nation is an iota safer after the Senate's action today. It is remarkable how bad a nominee has to be to get Olympia Snowe, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, Mark Kirk and others, to vote against him or her, but even that crowd couldn't support the truly radical Goodwin Liu. Too bad the same can't be said of Lisa Murkowski, perhaps taking over the reins from Olympia Snowe as the least useful and least principled member of the US Senate.
I do not make these comments lightly. As I have written before, the president should be given extremely wide latitude when it comes to his selection of judges. After all, elections have consequences. But judges who have made it plain that the Constitution is little more than an impediment to their political goals must be blocked by any legal means necessary.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article