The Ninth Circuit is well known for being a liberal court — based in San Francisco after all.
There is a vacancy and Obama wanted to appoint Goodwin Liu to the bench.
Fortunately, a Senate vote was taken to end debate and it failed leaving a path open to a filibuster. That was all it took and the appointment of Goodwin Liu is not going to happen.
From Morgen at Verum Serum:
In Liu of Victory…
Defeat, finally, for Goodwin Liu’s nomination to a seat on the Ninth Circuit. The vote to end debate on Liu’s nomination just failed, 52-43. In somewhat of a surprise, and in what can only be called a resounding rebuke to the White House, Murkowski seems to be the only Republican who voted against the filibuster. And Ben Nelson even crossed over to vote against Liu!
To the pathetic members of the liberal media spinning this as “petty revenge” for Liu’s opposition to Roberts and Alito, or arguing inanely that Liu was a threat only because he was “too qualified”…suck it. Liu’s views of the law and the Constitution are radical by any reasonable measure, and just because a few token, quasi- “conservatives” backed Liu, this did not make him the reasonable, mainstream candidate you purported him to be. The days of liberal activists inside and outside the White House installing stealth radicals in key positions throughout the government are thankfully winding down, at least under this Administration.
While it’s gratifying having played some part in the opposition to Liu’s nomination, the real winners are the American people – at least those among us who value freedom and personal responsibility - saved from the consequences of having yet another liberal activist judge installed in our courts. In case the message still hasn’t been received, we’re not going to sit back and take it any more.
For a good briefing on Liu's ideas and decision making, check out this article by Hans A. von Spakovsky and Deborah O'Malley at Pajamas Media(excerpt):
Goodwin Liu: If you think the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal and out-of-control appeals court in the country, couldn’t get any worse, you haven’t met Goodwin Liu, associate dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law.
For starters, Liu does not even meet the standard for federal judgeships outlined by the American Bar Association, which requires substantial courtroom and trial experience and at least 12 years practicing law. Liu has no experience as a trial lawyer. He hadn’t even been out of law school for 12 years when he was nominated.
In his writings, Liu has shown a disturbing judicial philosophy that fits neatly within the activist mold Obama wants nominees to fill. Liu “envisions the judiciary … as a culturally situated interpreter of social meaning.” Judges are not supposed to be interpreters of “social meaning” who base their decisions on the latest cultural meanderings of academia. They are supposed to be interpreters of the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. But it is this kind of nebulous culturally situated interpretation that allows judges to ignore the plain and ordinary meaning of the law and to replace it with what they personally think is the “best” outcome based upon their own highly subjective, biased, and often radical interpretation of “social meaning.”
Just how would this interpretation of “social meaning” manifest itself? One way, according to Liu, would be a court-created constitutional right to welfare. Liu desires a “reinvigorated public dialogue” about “our commitments to mutual aid and distributive justice across a broad range of social goods.” He wants the courts to recognize “a fundamental right to education or housing or medical care … as an interpretation and consolidation of the values we have gradually internalized as a society.”
Good riddance to bad rubbish — there is a reason that it takes such an effort to approve a judge. Add to this that it is a lifetime appointment and Liu, being young, could do 40-50 years of damage.Posted by DaveH at May 19, 2011 04:48 PM