Time for Tough Questions for Judicial Nominee

While the looming budget crisis is dominating much of Congress agenda this week, there is also a crucial hearing scheduled in the Senate Judiciary Committee.   Professor Goodwin Liu has been re-nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Committee will hear testimony from him in the days ahead. 

You may remember that Professor Liu was originally nominated to this post during the 111th Congress, but due to significant concerns expressed by ACLJ and others, he did not receive a Senate vote.  We continue to believe that these same areas of concern should mandate that Committee closely examine his views regarding the Constitution and the rule of law before any confirmation vote occurs.

There are many reasons for concern regarding Professor Lius qualifications, but foremost among them is his view that the Constitution must not interpreted literally, but rather through a subjective lens that takes into account any number of arbitrary factors.  We addressed those concerns specifically in a letter to the leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee nearly one year ago when the nomination first surfaced.  That letter is posted here.

Here are just a couple of Professor Lius outlandish quotes on the matter:

What we learn from the civil rights movement, and also from the New Deal, is that the meaning of the Constitution cannot be completely discovered by simply sitting down with the text and reading the words.

[t]he question that properly guides interpretation is not how the Constitution would have been applied at the Founding, but rather how it should be applied today in order to sustain its vitality in light of the changing needs, conditions, and understandings of our society.

Professor Liu has also sent clear signals that he is interested in advancing a specific political agenda far more than being a neutral arbiter of the law.  For example, in the wake of President Obamas election, Professor Liu told NPRs Weekend Edition:

Whereas I think in the last seven or eight years [referencing the Bush Administration] we [the American Constitution Society] had mostly been playing defense in the sense of trying to prevent as many in our view bad things from happening.  Now we have the opportunity to actually get our ideas and the progressive view of the Constitution and of law and policy into practice.

The bottom line is that there are significant reasons to believe that Professor Liu is not committed to an unbiased interpretation of the law.  In fact, it seems apparent that he is overtly interested in undermining the text of the Constitution and in advancing a much more subjective approach. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee must vigorously explore these areas of concern and call on Professor Liu to account for these troubling statements. 

Professor Liu himself has acknowledged the Judiciary Committee has an important role in "ensuring that our federal judges are fair, disciplined, and faithful to the law."  Regarding Chief Justice Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court, Professor Liu stated that because Roberts would have "life tenure on the nations highest court, its fair and essential to ask how he would interpret the Constitution and its basic values. Americans deserve real answers to this question, and it should be the central focus of the Senate confirmation process." 

If confirmed, Professor Liu would have life tenure to one of the second highest federal courts in the country.

Americans deserve to know his views on these important issues.