Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to hold a hearing (subsequently postponed) to consider President Obama’s nomination of Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In anticipation of the hearing, SCOTUSBlog founder Thomas Goldstein discussed the Liu nomination and its potential broader significance on The Huffington Post. According to Goldstein, the committee’s consideration of Liu “will chart the course for many dozens of judicial nominations that the president will make during his time in office.” In the process, Goldstein presents a surprisingly lopsided and ahistorical perspective on the Liu nomination and its place in the history of judicial nomination fights.
Goldstein’s central argument is that Republican opposition to Liu’s confirmation will set a disturbing precedent of rejecting nominees based upon their ideology. Goldstein writes:
The vote to confirm or reject an appellate nominee not only stakes out a position on the individual candidate, but also more broadly sets the bar on whether certain substantive views on the law are just too extreme to permit confirmation.By openly blocking Liu’s confirmation on the ground that his views of the Constitution are outside the mainstream, they would set a precedent applicable to dozens of future nominations, including for seats on the Supreme Court. If Liu’s opponents succeed, it is hard to see why the president would later nominate or the Senate would confirm any candidate who openly embraces the long-prevailing view that the Constitution is written in broad terms precisely in order to account for the varied problems that a huge and dynamic country would confront over the centuries.
The truth is that we should not fear the appointment of brilliant and conscientious lawyers like Goodwin Liu, whether those nominees tare on the ideological left or right. Instead, we should encourage them to take these critical appointments. There is a vibrant disagreement in the courts over how to interpret the Constitution, with no consensus on the correct answer. The jurists participating in that debate are not outside of the “mainstream.” Nor is Goodwin Liu.
What Goldstein fails to acknowledge is that this line has already been crossed. Senate Democrats have openly opposed confirmation of appellate and Supreme Court nominees well within the “mainstream” of conservative legal thought. Senate Democrats orgainzed hearings to justify the imposition of such ideological tests, and the consideraton of a judicial nominee’s ideology has been advocated by numerous Democrats, including then-Senator Obama and, interestingly enough, by Professor Liu. As I noted before, Liu called upon Senators to consider Judge Samuel Alito’s “judicial philosophy” and reject his confirmation because he was outside of the judicial “mainstream.” In short, Liu himself sought to “set the bar on whether certain substantive views on the law are just too extreme to permit confirmation” in such a way as to exclude “brilliant and conscientious lawyers” — albeit only those from the “idegological right.”
Goldstein also writes that “Liu’s formal qualifications for the post are not actually seriously disputed.” He notes that the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Professor Liu its highest rating of “well qualified.” This is all true, but high ABA ratings were hardly dispositive for Republican nominees. Liu’s rating will also revive concerns about ideological bias in the ABA’s ratings.
The ABA Committee evaluates judicial nominees based upon “their professional qualifications: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. According to the Committee, “a prospective nominee to the federal bench ordinarily should have at least twelve years’ experience in the practice of law.” Yet as Ed Whelan noted, Professor Liu has not even been out of law school for twelve years, and only practiced law for two years, and has only argued one case. By comparison, when President Reagan nominated University of Chicago Professor Frank Easterbrook to the U.S. Court of Appeals eleven-plus years out of law school, the ABA rated Easterbrook “qualified/not qualified” even though he had spent four years in the Solicitor General’s office and had argued twenty cases before the Supreme Court.
As I have written before, I believe Liu is a qualified nominee and that the Senate should be deferential when evaluating a President’s judicial nominees. But this has not been the Senate’s practice for quite some time, as evidenced by the many Bush nominees blocked on ideolgoical grounds. Republican opposition to Liu’s confirmation will not represent some great turning point in the Senate’s treatment of nominees — even if it is successful. If Goldstein is concerned about the imposition of ideological litmus tests on judicial nominees, he should consider how and when they began — and perhaps Professor Liu’s own role in this as well.
Mike says:
Miguel Estrada couldn’t even get a judicial hearing.
Neither could Doug Kmiec.
Both were exceptionally qualified, but were blocked due to their viewpoints.
Incidentally, here is Liu’s column on Justice Roberts’ nomination. Liu should be cooked in his own broth.
March 26, 2010, 12:03 amdrunkdriver says:
It is hard to read Goldstein’s comments without laughing.
March 26, 2010, 12:12 amCornellian says:
I think being a bad writer ought to disqualify a nominee. Frankly, I won’t shed any tears if the Republicans decide to filibuster a guy who writes a phrase like “the body politic [and its] ongoing search for constitutional meaning.”
Are you reading this Mitch?
Is it too much to ask for a nominee who can write in plain English?
March 26, 2010, 12:12 amGuesty McGuesterson says:
Of course, this is why Elena Kagan is on the DC Circuit. Wait, you mean to say this predates the Bush Administration? Unpossible!
March 26, 2010, 12:17 amSteve says:
I am with Prof. Adler on this one. This sets a precedent if it’s the first nomination you’ve ever paid attention to.
March 26, 2010, 12:38 amRecovering Law Grad says:
The increasing scrutiny given to judicial nominees’ ideology is far, far less the product of overreach by any one person or party, but, rather, a reflection of the trend toward greater polarization and ideological homogeneity within the parties.
It’s absurd to pin this on Liu, Obama, or any other individual.
I also wonder why Adler focuses on opposition based on ideology and not selection based on ideology. While the Ds have gone out on a number of limbs to oppose certain candidates, the Rs have certainly made the selection of candidates who feature a very particular ideology a major focus of their political energy (far more so than the Ds, to some frustration). These are two sides of the same coin, so, even to the extent one is looking to blame one group for where we are, both groups appear to have acted in substantially the same way – which just confirms that this is about larger trends.
March 26, 2010, 12:40 amdrunkdriver says:
well, if awful writing disqualifies you for a judgeship, the only good news is we just found a way to weed out more candidates . . .
March 26, 2010, 12:41 amJohn Herbison says:
Come on, now. Idelogical opposition to a judicial nomination is nothing new. Robert Bork comes to mind readily. For those old enough to remember, so does the attempt to elevate Abe Fortas to Chief Justice.
March 26, 2010, 12:44 amleo marvin says:
JHA said,
I think you may misunderstand what Goldstein meant. I think he agrees it’s already routine practice to put judicial nominees to ideological litmus tests:
So when he says
he only means that rejecting Liu would establish Liu’s ideology as the new outer limit for future nominees. Anyway, that’s how I read it.
March 26, 2010, 12:45 amGuy says:
Goldstein is, of course, being ridiculous in making it sound like judicial confirmations are not already politicized, though I think he’s trying to suggest that this would be a more “open” declaration that judicial philosophy matters than we’ve seen before.
Likewise, Professor Adler making it sound like only Democrats have applied a litmus test before is also a little disingenuous. Also, I fail to see how Professor Liu’s position on the issue is relevant, except maybe for irony value, or if you consider him to be a respected and persuasive authority on the matter.
March 26, 2010, 12:46 amDougInSanDiego says:
If this wasn’t getting to be so sad it would be funny as Hell.
For 8 years the Democrats called Bush “chimp”, “shrub”, etc etc etc. Extremists openly dreamed for, and hoped for, his untimely death. Cheney was dubbed “Darth”. Nominations were blocked as a routine course of events.
Now, maybe all of that is ‘normal’ and acceptable in a 2-party system.
But to NOW complain – simply because the party of the incumbent is reversed – about unfair taunts, name calling, nomination blocking, etc …
well, maybe it’s best described as ‘funny-sad’.
March 26, 2010, 12:53 amSFBurke says:
@recovering law grad: I don’t think anyone is pinning responsibility for the focus on ideology on Liu or Obama — Why would you say that? The point however is that both Liu and Obama have been fully supportive of ideological test for judicial appointees (when they opposed them), so they can hardly be upset if those tests are now used against them. Indeed, when Obama was a Senator he had the opportunity to be part of the bipartisan group of twelve that tried to reduce the role of ideology in review of judicial nominees, but he declined to join that effort. As in so many other areas, his comment to bipartisanship was more rhetorical than real.
As for the role of ideology in selection, I suppose you can believe that W was more ideological than Clinton or Obama, but I doubt there is any factual support for that. I suspect it is more a matter of one’s world view and the fact that the mainstream media tended to focus on the “extreme” ideologies of republican appointees.
March 26, 2010, 12:57 amRecovering Law Grad says:
SFBurke –
1) Adler was clearly suggesting that Liu bears responsibility for the focus on ideology. See the whole post, and especially the final sentence.
2) This is not at all intended to be a criticism, but I think it’s fairly clear that W was far more “ideological” than Clinton. The fact is, Bush’s base cared a lot more about judicial nominees than did Clinton’s – much in the same what Clinton’s cared more about health care. I suspect Obama will be more ideological than Clinton, but not more so than Bush. This isn’t because Obama is a bad guy or a good guy, but simply because social conservatives value judicial noms more highly than pretty much every other interest group.
March 26, 2010, 1:07 amAJK says:
I think the claim is that Liu fully endorsed the focus on ideology, not that he’s responsible for it. (There’s a difference.)
March 26, 2010, 1:18 amJoe says:
Goldstein’s central argument is that Republican opposition to Liu’s confirmation will set a disturbing precedent of rejecting nominees based upon their ideology.
Isn’t that the entire point? What else would you reject them on?
March 26, 2010, 1:27 amLester Livio says:
Liu is being paid in his own ideological coins–and deservedly so in my view. He wallowed in the ideological mud during the Roberts nomination. He is still dripping with the muck.
Obama, time to nominate someone else in lieu of Liu.
March 26, 2010, 1:28 amDave M. (now in S. Korea) says:
Now I know for sure I am living in a parrallel universe. This Goldstein has got to be kidding, no one can be that daft. The Republicans will set a new precedent? Has this dufus ever heard of being “Borked”?
March 26, 2010, 2:03 amthinkstrategically says:
I’m honestly disappointed to read Goldstein’s piece. I had previously held him in such high regard.
March 26, 2010, 2:22 amDave N. says:
And if it prevents another Stephen Reinhardt or Harry Pregerson from getting confirmed that, in itself, is a good thing.
March 26, 2010, 2:39 amD.O. says:
I don’t read the Goldstein’s piece as something against ideological tests. He is concerned that a lawyer who holds what he thinks a mainstream ideology will nevertheless be whacked for it. Goldstein’s post is not very informative, he does not define mainstream and does not show that Liu is within this mainstream. As far as there is an argument, he thinks that Liu’s views are not to the left of the Warren court and that this is enough for mainstream. Because Prof. Adler refuses to consider ideology as a test for judicial appointment, I will wait for someone else to explain me what is mainstream and how to find whether somebody is within it or not.
March 26, 2010, 4:24 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » On Goldstein On Liu -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vincent Chuang. Vincent Chuang said: On Goldstein On Liu http://goo.gl/DOQD i have a particular interest in this nomination. i foresee many interesting future shares. [...]
March 26, 2010, 4:43 amkrs says:
I read Goldstein’s comments and figured he’s dropped the pretense of being an honest broker. He’s gotten where he wants to be, and nothing further to be gained. The essay started off sensible, and started rolling downhill with the ABA comment. Given Liu’s public remarks about the confirmation process and testimony against Alito, it seems to me that Obama’s deliberately picked a fight and wants to see if the Republicans really have any teeth to resist him…. can the Party of No and racist mobs oppose someone like Liu?
And… I can’t resist saying it… I despise the ABA and it pushes my buttons when people talk about its ratings of nominees in the way Goldstein does.
March 26, 2010, 4:52 amBrett Bellmore says:
I’d say the behavior of the Magnificent Seven is evidence enough Clinton cared about judicial nominees. He was just focused on something other than ideology.
As for Liu, he’s made his bed, he should be prepared to sleep in it.
March 26, 2010, 7:06 amNick says:
What Liu said about Roberts is fascinating to me. Liu says that “limited government,” “private ownership of property,” and “free enterprise” are “code words.” If I can decode what that means, he’s saying that Roberts is only pretending to not think what Liu thinks. Liu isn’t saying that Roberts believes in these things. Liu’s saying that Roberts just lies about this. To use these words is to pretend they’re good things. Liu says, “These are code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections.”
So Liu believes there are two kinds of beliefs. First, sincere beliefs, as in Liu’s own beliefs, and second, pretense. If you don’t believe what Liu believes, you believe in nothing at all. What you have’s an “agenda” instead. You’re against “environmental, workplace, and consumer protections,” but you’re not for anything else. Except in the logical sense that Roberts is for hurting people and attacking them. Attacking is the opposite of protecting, and Liu doesn’t accept that Roberts could sincerely disagree with him. So Roberts just hates people, and the environment, and tiny kittens, I guess. That’s what Liu means when he says Roberts “has a vision for American law.” An entirely negative one.
I think it’s fascinating that there are people who can’t accept that there are other people with beliefs of their own. But Liu has never really needed to know whatever those people believe. They’re not the kind of people he’d like to meet. Liu says, “There’s no doubt Roberts has a brilliant legal mind.” But Roberts has had to make arguments and convince people of what they don’t already believe. And in that sense Roberts is extreme, and Liu, entirely typical.
March 26, 2010, 8:20 amWidmerpool says:
Why are Goldstein’s blatherings worthy of notice–let alone criticism? After all, he has also argued that Kagan is more mainstream than Wood and should get the next Supreme Court slot. I admire Goldstein for his self-marketing–but for his judgment? Ha!
March 26, 2010, 8:23 amPersonFromPorlock says:
What I’d love is for a Republican member of the committee to ask Liu if his favorable view of reparations would incline him to consider a reparations suit against the (non-governmental, and therefore non-immune) Democratic party on the grounds that it promoted policies that seriously damaged African-American families over the last fifty years. But then, I’m a terrible person.
March 26, 2010, 8:31 amStan says:
Nomination politics are fun. Whether Liu goes up or or is kept off is of little import. Obama has nominated him and gets the credit from people who care about his philosophy or race. Republicans get to fall all over themselves, either hiding their ideological agenda or making it plain. The left gets fired up about nominations like the right did to Obama’s advantage.
I will note, not that it will matter, that there is more room for ideological diversity on the court of appeals than the supreme court. Just count the seats. So the question I would think is more relevant is whether Liu supported any of Bush’s COA judges.
March 26, 2010, 8:41 amStephen Lathrop says:
I’m grateful to have another Liu thread. In the previous one, just before it was cut off, I posted a comment in which someone with an extremely conservative voice (ostensibly me), ended up asserting that:
1. Affirmative action ought to work selectively against working class and middle class white males, but not against members of the professions.
2. That it was a good thing for affirmative action that Harvard and Yale have tenured so few black professors.
A few minutes after my post, the cut-off of comments on that thread prevented me from developing my theme.
To keep the record straight, I don’t believe either of those things. My post was an attempt to humorously needle conservatives whose thinking does seem to me to tend in that direction.
Maybe it’s better to keep satire under pseudonyms, to keep literalists from getting confused about who is talking. The wisdom of Sarcastro.
March 26, 2010, 8:42 amJohn Herbison says:
Well, senators can ask what they wish. Such a question as that, however, would reflect discredit on the questioner and not the nominee. Assuming the premise of the question, for purposes of this discussion, to be correct–that a political party has promoted policies that have had a bad effect–there would be a huge First Amendment problem with awarding damages for advocacy of a particular political viewpoint.
But I suspect that the commenter above knows that.
March 26, 2010, 8:45 amAssistant Village Idiot says:
“Let’s not argue about who killed who…”
Progressives long ago became a Monty Python routine on this subject. Mybe the argument sketch would have been a better example.
March 26, 2010, 9:04 amMQuinn says:
While I support Liu’s confirmation, I can not understand why it is not the proper role of the Senate to reject a nominee for ideology, if a majority of the Senate finds the nominee’s ideology unacceptable. After all, isn’t this precisely why the Constitution requires confirmation by a political branch, the Senate?
March 26, 2010, 9:09 amPaul says:
I agree with Goldstein. This will be an unprecedented Borking of a nominee. Oh wait….
March 26, 2010, 9:11 amStephen Lathrop says:
Whatever objections anyone might have to particular court nominees, ideological appointments are hardly the fault of the nominees themselves. Presidents have an obligation to protect the credibility of the judiciary by appointing jurists for their legal expertise, temperament, prestige, intellect and impartiality. When it comes to Supreme Court appointments, all these characteristics need to be present together, and there needs to be recognition that great strength in one aspect is inadequate compensation for the absence of another.
Nobody needs to think very long to recognize the repeated failures by presidents of both parties in fulfilling that obligation. The problem now is how to walk it back.
Probably only a deliberately fostered tradition of administrative responsibility can protect the judiciary. A sitting president needs to make a public point of appointing qualified centrists. His party must subsequently take an energetic but principled stand on blocking opportunistic appointments by opponents, should they fail to honor the “tradition,” until it becomes a Tradition.
If it ever happens, as I think it should, that the filibuster is eliminated, I think it should be kept in place exclusively for judicial appointments. Or perhaps it would be better to simply establish a standing super-majority rule for judicial appointments.
I can easily recognize Liu as someone who would be an unacceptably political jurist. I don’t think conservatives should have more difficulty seeing similar problems in some of the current conservative members of the Supreme Court.
I don’t believe this is an impossible standard, that judicial quality be recognizable apart from politics, but perhaps I’m too ready to discount the allure of opportunism.
March 26, 2010, 9:29 amPersonFromPorlock says:
“Promoted” doesn’t merely mean advocacy, it also means working to achieve an effect… which effect has been arguably pernicious for decades.
March 26, 2010, 9:32 amJonathan H. Adler says:
The explanation for Senate confirmation given by Hamilton in Federalist 76 is that it would prevent cronyism and the appointment of corrupt or incompetent judges. He wrote:
JHA
March 26, 2010, 9:39 amDerHahn says:
MQuinn, remember than when Senate confirmation was written into the Constitution Senators were not selected by direct election, and that the House plays no role in confirmations.
It’s possible to come up with a number of reasons unrelated to politics or ideology that the framers felt Senate confirmation was useful. It serves as a check on cronyism, bribery by favor, and the elevation of manifestly unqualified candidates. Notice also that the Senators are only called on to ‘consent’, not ‘approve’ of the nomination.
March 26, 2010, 9:41 amStan says:
Prof. Adler: that is a rather constrained reading of words like popularity and favoritism. Presidents can favor and find popular (among people that matter to them) certain ways of ruling.
March 26, 2010, 9:57 amPer Son says:
Goldstein lost a ton of credibility. Lib or not – chicken or egg, both sides have made ideology the main reason to support or reject a nominee. That Republicans are doing it now is only because of the results of 2008.
Goldstein needs to wake up.
March 26, 2010, 10:00 amAdam B. says:
Estrada had a hearing; it was Clinton nominees like Elena Kagan who were presumed to be unworthy without a hearing.
Douglas Kmiec was never nominated for the judiciary.
March 26, 2010, 10:08 amox says:
The bottom line is that Democrats have allowed votes on many young, ideologically committed judges. Consider: Kozinski, Jones, Easterbrook, Luttig, Starr, Ginsburg, Wilkinson, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Boggs, Ripple, Pryor, Sutton, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Kethledge, etc. — all appointed to circuit courts in either their 30s or early 40s.
Over the last twenty five years, Republicans haven’t been asked to consent to very many Democratic judicial nominees who are as young and ideologically committed. Now that they are, turn about is only fair play.
Whatever Liu’s position or Goldstein’s, the historical record on this is very clear. The names and ages of successful appointments speak for themselves.
March 26, 2010, 10:13 ambyomtov says:
Isn’t the reason there’s been no hearing on Liu that the Republicans are throwing a temper tantrum and not allowing hearings after 2 PM? Or have they calmed down by now?
March 26, 2010, 10:29 amMQuinn says:
Prof Adler:
That is a pretty convincing argument, but I would push back with three quick points: First, I don’t read that as an exclusive list. Second, it seems to me that, beginning with George Washington, the President’s nominees have been scrutinized for ideology.
But, like I said, your argument is convincing, and I wasn’t aware of that quote.
March 26, 2010, 11:15 amgeokstr says:
I’m surprised that “borked” is the only new addition to the language because of judicial confirmations. Why aren’t “thomased” or “anitaed” or even “pubichaired” also part of the political vocabulary too? And I guess in the case of Estrada, “latinoed” wouldn’t be acceptable because La Raza would have conniption fits over the copyrights.
It would seem entirely fitting to see the word “liued” added to standard English.
March 26, 2010, 11:33 amDotar Sojat says:
Give him a hearing. It should be fairly easy to slice and dice him ten ways from Sunday using only his own words.
March 26, 2010, 11:49 ambrian k says:
this has got to be one of the more hackish posts i’ve read from adler recently. i hope he is not following the trend set by too many of the co-conspirators.
he makes it sound like only democrats oppose republican nominees for petty reasons…but one can only believe that if they have no knowledge of history.
March 26, 2010, 12:23 pmStentorian Orator says:
Yep. Sure does. That’s why John Roberts was not on the D.C. Circuit in 1992, when he was first nominated. Ditto Sidney Fitzwater on the 5th and Bernard Siegen on the 9th (as well as plenty more whose names I don’t currently recall).
Goldstein, like many Senate Democrats and the mainstream media, has a rather selective memory.
March 26, 2010, 12:33 pmThe Cloakroom » Judicial Nominations says:
[...] Adler has a good piece on the Liu nomination fight at the Volokh Conspiracy. In his last paragraph he writes: As I have [...]
March 26, 2010, 12:58 pmNunzio says:
Maybe Obama can nominate both Yoo and Liu. Cancel out out the perspectives of Berkeley law professors on the 9th Circuit.
On a serious note, it would be great if both parties could agree to nominate people who are least 50 years old. A little wisdom from experience would help a lot on the bench. See Easterbrook.
March 26, 2010, 1:05 pmRPT says:
Don’t forget Fortas, Carswell, Haynesworth and everyone else ever rejected, all of whom are entitled to their own “word”. Oh, Thomas was confirmed….
March 26, 2010, 1:34 pmbloodstar says:
Sorry to break it to everyone, but so what if it’s been going on up to this point. If someone doesn’t start fixing the problem, then all we’re going to have is more belly aching from one side or the other about how unfairly they’re being treated.
The problem I have is I am completely confident that the Republicans will continue their obstructionist ways. A unified Borg collective so to speak. The problem with having no flexibility to compromise is you get the following conversation
Republicans: “This bill/nominee/whatever sucks, I won’t vote for this.”
Democrat: “OK, what can we do to make it better?”
R: “Add this, change that, make this go away etc…”
D: “Ok we can do some of that, Now, will you vote for the bill?”
R: “Hell no. We’d never vote for anything you propose.”
D: “Then why should we even bother with your ideas?”
R: “…”
At least with the Democrats, there’s enough diversity that a few votes can be peeled off and legislation/nominees passed when Republicans are in office.
March 26, 2010, 1:34 pmoxr says:
geokstr: “It would seem entirely fitting to see the word “liued” added to standard English.”
Or the phrase “in liu of”, perhaps.
March 26, 2010, 1:37 pmDave N. says:
Nice talking points. Too bad it’s so badly divorced from reality.
March 26, 2010, 1:57 pmABC123 says:
Goldstein’s almost certainly intentional failure to acknowledge Bork shows he completely lacks credibility. What a hack.
March 26, 2010, 2:19 pmbyomtov says:
If Goldstein is concerned about the imposition of ideological litmus tests on judicial nominees, he should consider how and when they began
I don’t know how and when they began. I do remember “Impeach Earl Warren” signs. I also remember calls for “strict constructionist” judges when that phrase was a euphemism for “segregationist.”
So maybe it goes back quite a while.
March 26, 2010, 3:29 pmNunzio says:
Byomtov,
What Senator had an “Impeach Earl Warren” sign?
March 26, 2010, 3:32 pmMark Field says:
I don’t know about Senators, but then-House Minority Leader Gerald Ford tried to impeach William O. Douglas.
March 26, 2010, 3:45 pmShannon says:
What is the Constitutional basis for this statement:
I read nothing in the text of the Constitution that even hints that the Senate owes the Executive anything with regard to judicial nominations. The Senate has the independent power to accept or reject any nomination of the Executive, for any reason or none. There is no mechanism in the Constitution for any other branch of Government to overrule the Senate in the use of this power.
Confirming Presidential nominations is an enumerated power of the Senate, and the Constitution places no limits on the use of that power.
So where do you get the idea that the Senate should show deference to the Executive in this regard?
–Shannon
March 26, 2010, 4:22 pmNunzio says:
Mark,
Ironic that he got to appoint Douglas’ replacement.
March 26, 2010, 4:22 pmSarcastro says:
[As per above, Federalist 76.]
March 26, 2010, 4:31 pmmariner says:
Surely you jest. Just read the comments right here on this thread.
March 26, 2010, 5:25 pmMark Field says:
That was noted at the time. Gerry Ford was usually a much better person than the impeachment fiasco would suggest.
March 26, 2010, 7:12 pmbyomtov says:
Nunzio,
I didn’t say a Senator had such a sign. I said there was a movement, and there was. The signs were commonplace in the South, and I’d be surprised if some southern Senators did not at least express sympathy for it. The negative reaction to the Brown decision, and other Warren Court rulings, was intense and widespread in the South, and Nixon had no qualms about appealing to it in 1968.
March 26, 2010, 7:38 pmgeokstr says:
Oh, so the fact that he was confirmed makes the fraudulent and despicable smearfest he was subjected sooooooo much less reprehensible, eh?
March 26, 2010, 7:59 pmMark Field says:
The first “Impeach Earl Warren” sign. I didn’t know this until I looked it up, but this was posted in San Francisco.
March 26, 2010, 7:59 pmFredC says:
He was from the Bay Area.
March 26, 2010, 8:20 pmJoe says:
Give him a hearing. It should be fairly easy to slice and dice him ten ways from Sunday using only his own words.
Interesting blog on his confirmation. The hearing was rescheduled. The blog, e.g., notes John Yoo and Kenneth Starr have voiced support of his nomination. I personally don’t hold this against him, but it makes the citation of Yoo above a bit amusing. Of course, conservative support did not stop blockage of Dawn Johnsen.
Mention was made about Bork. Clearly, a swing vote on the Supreme Court is of equal value and importance as one vote on the Ninth Circuit.
Citation of Alexander Hamilton above is not really convincing, as if that was an exhaustive listing or that growth of political and ideological battles did not change things.* Simply put, if you make the confirmation a vote in a political body (as compared to independent commissions or whatnot), politics — as has been the case since early on — and ideology will factor in to some degree by the natural of the animal.
Goldstein does come off as fatuous here when he doesn’t put the fight here in context. No ‘precedent’ is being set here. We have been down this road before.
Liu is young and is something of an easy target. The conservative support by some suggests not totally. On that front, Obama — who has not chosen to be as ideological on this front than his predecessor — very well might have chosen wisely. We shall see.
* This suggests that citation of The Federalist as if it was a full-fledged official commentary of the Constitution has certain limitations.
March 26, 2010, 8:33 pmJohn Herbison says:
Clarence Thomas’s contribution to the language is the phrase, “This is a high-tech lynching”.
Someone who had spent his career as the pre-eminent Republican Negro of his day, bashing the affirmative action programs he had benefited from, in October 1991 suddenly found his further advancement in jeopardy, whereupon he immediately played the hell out of the race card.
If then-Judge Thomas had not been confirmed, he would merely have remained a U. S. Court of Appeals judge. Abe Fortas was not lynched when the Senate declined to confirm him as Chief Justice. Clement Haynesworth, Harold Carswell and Robert Bork were not lynched when their nominations were rejected by the Senate.
Sorry, but Mr. Thomas cheapened an ugly word in a grossly egotistical, petulant and whiny fashion. A lynching is not something that its victim walks away from under his own power.
March 26, 2010, 8:40 pmMark Field says:
Sort of. He was born in LA, grew up in Bakersfield, and worked in SF until he entered politics, at which point he was mostly in Sacramento and DC.
My surprise, though, had to do with the political audience. I wouldn’t expect the flyer to have gotten much traction in SF in 1958.
March 26, 2010, 8:43 pmbyomtov says:
Clement Haynesworth, Harold Carswell and Robert Bork were not lynched when their nominations were rejected by the Senate.
Let’s not forget Sen. Roman Hruska’s ringing endorsement of Carswell,
With supporters like that, a nominee needs no enemies.
March 26, 2010, 10:27 pmChrisTS says:
@byomtov:
God, I had forgotten that: the mediocre deserve judicial representation by their own kind!
A whole new slant on affirmative action.
March 27, 2010, 10:52 amS says:
I thought he was the DA in Oakland.
March 27, 2010, 1:38 pmAlbertE. says:
Liu called upon Senators to consider Judge Samuel Alito’s “judicial philosophy” and reject his confirmation because he was outside of the judicial “mainstream.” In short, Liu himself sought to “set the bar on whether certain substantive views on the law are just too extreme to permit confirmation” in such a way as to exclude “brilliant and conscientious lawyers” — albeit only those from the “idegological right.”
The chickens are coming home to roost!
The chickens are coming home to roost!
GOD bless Reverend Wright and Malcolm Little [X] before him.
March 28, 2010, 10:10 am