PDA

View Full Version : Goodwin Liu (appeals court nominee) blocked by GOP


rp55
03-30-2011, 12:30 PM
If I get involved in politics I am a single-issue (2A) oriented. A friend sent me this article (http://www.lifenews.com/2011/03/28/senate-committee-hearing-on-pro-abortion-goodwin-liu-this-week/) about federal appeals court nominee Goodwin Liu. Try to ignore that it is from a pro-life website and read about him. I admit that am making an assumption that a "liberal University of California law professor" who believes that the Constitution is a “living document" cannot be good for the Second Amendment yet I have not heard a thing from any 2A related organization about this guy. Are they sliding one past us? Should we be urging opposition to Liu’s nomination?

From: lifenews.com (http://www.lifenews.com/2011/03/28/senate-committee-hearing-on-pro-abortion-goodwin-liu-this-week/)

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on pro-abortion federal appeals court nominee Goodwin Liu, whom President Barack Obama picked for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Liu, liberal a University of California law professor, is slated to come before the panel on Thursday, where he will face strong opposition again from Republicans.

He is a left-wing abortion supporter who conservative legal guru Ed Whelan observed was so left-wing that former “White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel initially vetoed” his candidacy for the Ninth Circuit “on the ground that Liu’s left-wing record made him too controversial.” But Whelan says new White House counsel Robert Bauer “eager to please the Left, successfully pushed back.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee planned to vote on Liu’s nomination on March 17, but Republicans requested the vote be postponed. Instead, the committee approved Edward Chen, an Obama selection for the District Court for the Northern District of California. Pro-life advocates oppose Chen because of his time spent as an attorney for the pro-abortion ACLU.

In December, Democrats gave up on a vote on Liu as a deal brokered between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with White House officials allowed votes on several less controversial nominees but not Liu.

Family Research Council legislative director Tom McClusky has commented on Liu, saying he is “a firm believer in the rule of international law and has shown nothing but disrespect for the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

And Whelen, writing at National Review, says Liu is a problem because he believes the Constitution to be a “living” document, the same view as those jurists on the Supreme Court who invented an unlimited right to abortion throughout pregnancy in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases. “Goodwin Liu has urged judicial invention (usually in an “interstitial” role) of constitutional rights,” he writes.

Liu “presents a volatile mix of aggressive left-wing ideology and raw inexperience,” Whelan adds.

“Liu is closely aligned with various left-wing groups. For example, he is (or recently was) on the boards of directors of the American Constitution Society, the ACLU of Northern California, and the National Women’s Law Center. He apparently practiced law for about two years,” he notes.

Liu has said he believes in the pro-abortion notion of a changing Constitution that can, for example, allow for unlimited abortion rights.

“What we mean by fidelity is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation,” Liu has said.

Liu clerked for pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, worked in the Clinton administration, and spoke out against Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

yellowfin
03-30-2011, 12:34 PM
Given the track record of who is nominating her, my guess would be she's very bad.

bwiese
03-30-2011, 12:35 PM
I don't think there's a read yet on this, will poke around.

I will note that there are certain helpful overlaps between the logic of preserving Roe and preserving RKBA.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-30-2011, 12:46 PM
I don't think there's a read yet on this, will poke around.

I will note that there are certain helpful overlaps between the logic of preserving Roe and preserving RKBA.

But that doesn't mean Liu would follow that 'thought' policy as law in regards to things she finds distasteful. Nothing says even if the same argument was made for 2A as was for 1A (Roe), the Justice can't write a differing opinion by finding some other way to go against it.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-30-2011, 12:47 PM
Also, Liu is very, very liberal, and has no qualms about expressing it. I think she is not someone I want to see on an upper court.

fonso
03-30-2011, 1:06 PM
Goodwin Liu is a MALE! For a pic and background info, see: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyProfile.php?facID=4360 (Also, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin_Liu)

I have expressed my disdain for Liu's confirmation to the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to both Boxer and Feinstein, and neither has responded to me.

Liu has been called "President Barack Obama’s most controversial judicial nominee." See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50567.html

http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/03/the-goodwin-liu-hearings-take says, in part, about Liu, "Depending on who you ask, Liu is either a mainstream legal scholar or a dangerous judicial activist. He’s definitely no constitutional originalist, having written that what matters for judicial decision-making '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.'"

In my opinion, Liu is NO FRIEND to the Constitution!!!
:wacko::wacko::wacko:

OleCuss
03-30-2011, 2:06 PM
If we protest to Boxer or Feinstein that Liu is too "Liberal" that will be taken as an endorsement.

But anyone who believes that the Constitution is a "living" document is a threat to our fundamental rights. I don't care which rights you're interested in - they're a threat.

Wherryj
03-30-2011, 2:09 PM
Goodwin Liu is a MALE! For a pic and background info, see: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyProfile.php?facID=4360 (Also, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin_Liu)

I have expressed my disdain for Liu's confirmation to the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to both Boxer and Feinstein, and neither has responded to me.

Liu has been called "President Barack Obama’s most controversial judicial nominee." See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50567.html

http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/03/the-goodwin-liu-hearings-take says, in part, about Liu, "Depending on who you ask, Liu is either a mainstream legal scholar or a dangerous judicial activist. He’s definitely no constitutional originalist, having written that what matters for judicial decision-making '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.'"

In my opinion, Liu is NO FRIEND to the Constitution!!!
:wacko::wacko::wacko:

Mr. Liu, I will tell you exactly how the Constitution should be applied "today...in light of changing needs, conditions and understandings of our society". It should be applied EXACTLY how it was applied "at the founding".

As a law school professor I would have thought that you'd be aware of a little known aspect of the Constitution. It is called the Amendment process. It allows for the constitution to be changed in light of "changing needs, conditions and understandings of our society" WITHOUT allowing for a few elitists with personal bias and prejudgments to influence the decisions.

john.t.singh
03-30-2011, 2:56 PM
That makes no sense that the constitution should be applied EXACTLY at the founding. The whole point of having amendments to the constitution is to give the people a chance to make changes and improvements.

Goodwin Liu is actually a very intelligent scholar. Before you bash on him try to take some time to listen to one of his lectures and what he has to say... I think he would make a great addition to the 9th court of appeals.

How he performs there should then determine if he should sit at the highest court or not.

Bhobbs
03-30-2011, 3:14 PM
That makes no sense that the constitution should be applied EXACTLY at the founding. The whole point of having amendments to the constitution is to give the people a chance to make changes and improvements.

Goodwin Liu is actually a very intelligent scholar. Before you bash on him try to take some time to listen to one of his lectures and what he has to say... I think he would make a great addition to the 9th court of appeals.

How he performs there should then determine if he should sit at the highest court or not.
What he is saying is completely different from the amendment process. He is saying that judges look at the Constitution in today's meanings. If they are anti 2a they will say there is no need for a 2a today and say that it does not apply to the people.

Wherryj
03-30-2011, 3:57 PM
Justice Scalia's take on "living Constitution" and "moderate interpretation":
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm
"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean?"

Wherryj
03-30-2011, 3:59 PM
That makes no sense that the constitution should be applied EXACTLY at the founding. The whole point of having amendments to the constitution is to give the people a chance to make changes and improvements.

Goodwin Liu is actually a very intelligent scholar. Before you bash on him try to take some time to listen to one of his lectures and what he has to say... I think he would make a great addition to the 9th court of appeals.

How he performs there should then determine if he should sit at the highest court or not.

You are making excuses for judges who feel that they have the right to personally amend the constitution through their own decisions based upon personal bias/feelings.

Judges rule based upon set laws. If the laws are out of date, there is a remedy-amend them.

zenmastar
03-30-2011, 4:26 PM
You are making excuses for judges who feel that they have the right to personally amend the constitution through their own decisions based upon personal bias/feelings.

Judges rule based upon set laws. If the laws are out of date, there is a remedy-amend them.

This.

I would guess that the the poster you are quoting does not really know Mr Liu as he failed to mention that Mr Liu has *never* once been in court as an attorney or judge in his life.

fonso
03-30-2011, 6:21 PM
That makes no sense that the constitution should be applied EXACTLY at the founding. The whole point of having amendments to the constitution is to give the people a chance to make changes and improvements.

It makes perfect sense that, absent any Constitutional Amendment to the contrary concerning the case at hand, the judge(s) is/are duty bound by oath to follow "EXACTLY" the Constitution and rule accordingly on the case.

Any failure on the judge's/judges' part(s) is an abrogation of the judge's/judges' duty and constitutes either, malfeasance, nonfeasance, or misfeasance.

Any judge/judges who violate their sworn Oath of Office should be forthwith impeached, removed from office and prosecuted criminally for their dereliction of duty!!!

nick
03-30-2011, 7:32 PM
That makes no sense that the constitution should be applied EXACTLY at the founding. The whole point of having amendments to the constitution is to give the people a chance to make changes and improvements.

Goodwin Liu is actually a very intelligent scholar. Before you bash on him try to take some time to listen to one of his lectures and what he has to say... I think he would make a great addition to the 9th court of appeals.

How he performs there should then determine if he should sit at the highest court or not.

But he's not advocating AMENDING the Constitution, which is the right way of changing it should the need arise. He's advocating interpreting it away, which is something that's been going on for a while, and is plain wrong.

nick
03-30-2011, 7:33 PM
Justice Scalia's take on "living Constitution" and "moderate interpretation":
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm
"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean?"

If only he did as he said...

OleCuss
03-30-2011, 7:44 PM
This.

I would guess that the the poster you are quoting does not really know Mr Liu as he failed to mention that Mr Liu has *never* once been in court as an attorney or judge in his life.

Wow! That's amazing!

I'm not sure that should necessarily disqualify someone - but I really have difficulty imagining appointing someone who had not acted as an attorney in court and/or as a judge.

Seriously, it is difficult to imagine he'd be rated as qualified by the ABA, or that he would survive a confirmation hearing or vote. Doesn't mean that the Democrats won't confirm him. . .

tiki
03-30-2011, 8:37 PM
The Constitution is a living document, through Amendments, and not accornding to how judges feel like interpreting it at the time. Otherwise, pretty soon, Islam is too dangerous to society, freedom of speech is too damaging (wiki leaks) and public assembly is a security risk if its done within 1500 feet of a sensitve place.

Apocalypsenerd
03-30-2011, 11:20 PM
I was under the impression that Goodwin Liu had been nominated in 2009 and after a conservative storm, stepped back from the nomination.

He is a superlib. He is also very, very intelligent. From my limited reading, many of his legal arguments are strong and rational. Extremely intelligent and flexible on the Constitution, he could be dangerous to the Libertarian view of the Constitution.

If he has a predilection towards anti-2A bias, a careful study of his opinions could be useful for strengthening the pro-2A side.

Better, more educated minds than mine will have a clearer view.

snobord99
03-31-2011, 12:56 AM
This.

I would guess that the the poster you are quoting does not really know Mr Liu as he failed to mention that Mr Liu has *never* once been in court as an attorney or judge in his life.

You do realize that an appellate level court is a court right?

And you really don't need to have been a trial attorney to be a good appellate judge. The functions of a trial attorney are not very similar to an appellate attorney at all (let alone an appellate judge).

I'm not saying whether I think he's going to make a good judge for the 9th Circuit. I'm just pointing out something that's been presented as a fact that I believe is wrong and voicing my opinion on something you seem to be implying (namely, that an attorney who hasn't been in court can't be a good judge).

rp55
05-19-2011, 11:50 AM
I cannot resist the pun.

A good win for us (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267667/gop-blocks-liu-andrew-stiles).

Senate Republicans have successfully filibustered the nomination of Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The final vote on cloture was 52 to 43, with one Senator (Orrin Hatch of Utah) voting “present,” well short of the 60 votes required to end a filibuster. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) voted yes, while Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) voted no. Sens. Bauchus, Hutchison, Moran and Vitter did not vote.

yellowfin
05-19-2011, 12:23 PM
Can we expect a REAL stand and vote majority NO?

NotEnufGarage
05-19-2011, 12:30 PM
That makes no sense that the constitution should be applied EXACTLY at the founding. The whole point of having amendments to the constitution is to give the people a chance to make changes and improvements.

Goodwin Liu is actually a very intelligent scholar. Before you bash on him try to take some time to listen to one of his lectures and what he has to say... I think he would make a great addition to the 9th court of appeals.

How he performs there should then determine if he should sit at the highest court or not.

What you're saying is exactly why this guy should be rejected.

The founders deliberated carefully on the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, right down to parsing words. The words mean what they say, based on the meaning of those words then, not what our illiterate society has morfed those meanings into.

I will happily bash Mr. Liu for wanting to apply contemporary meanings to words and phrases that were carefully debated 235 years ago and that have served us well for that length of time.

I don't think the Court of Appeals is a good place for on the job training. Maybe Mr. Liu should leave academia for a while, establish a private practice, get a few trials under his belt and sit on a Municipal or Superior Court bench for a few years before moving up to a court that has jurisdiction over 1/3rd of the US population.

dantodd
05-19-2011, 12:44 PM
I don't think there's a read yet on this, will poke around.

I will note that there are certain helpful overlaps between the logic of preserving Roe and preserving RKBA.

fairly prescient Bill. The Nordyke panel relied heavily on Abortion law in their opinion.

Esquire
05-19-2011, 12:50 PM
I don't think the Court of Appeals is a good place for on the job training. Maybe Mr. Liu should leave academia for a while, establish a private practice, get a few trials under his belt and sit on a Municipal or Superior Court bench for a few years before moving up to a court that has jurisdiction over 1/3rd of the US population.

Totally agree.

Bigtime1
05-19-2011, 1:18 PM
I cannot resist the pun.

A good win for us (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267667/gop-blocks-liu-andrew-stiles).

Senate Republicans have successfully filibustered the nomination of Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit ..............Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) voted yes, while Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) voted no. Sens. Bauchus, Hutchison, Moran and Vitter did not vote.

A nice reminder of was a POS she is.

cruising7388
05-19-2011, 1:46 PM
But anyone who believes that the Constitution is a "living" document is a threat to our fundamental rights. I don't care which rights you're interested in - they're a threat.

Baloney! The right to privacy (Griswold vs. Conn.) was decided by a Surpreme Court that considered this right to have evolved in a living document Constitution. It's the proponents of originalism that have no problem with the government telling you how to behave in your own bedroom.

backup
05-19-2011, 3:45 PM
Has it always been common for some to never have had any judicial experience behind the bench prior to becoming a justice? To me it seems like an important requirement.

Uxi
05-19-2011, 3:48 PM
I want to projectile vomit every time I hear "living document." The Founders gave a great method to update the Constitution to suit the changing times: Amendments

Sunwolf
05-19-2011, 5:46 PM
Mr.Liu is an example of Karma,bashing a supreme court nominee will come back around.

vantec08
05-19-2011, 7:00 PM
That makes no sense that the constitution should be applied EXACTLY at the founding. The whole point of having amendments to the constitution is to give the people a chance to make changes and improvements.

Goodwin Liu is actually a very intelligent scholar. Before you bash on him try to take some time to listen to one of his lectures and what he has to say... I think he would make a great addition to the 9th court of appeals.

How he performs there should then determine if he should sit at the highest court or not.


COTUS is VERY specific on how to "change it." Call a constitutional convention, 37 states must ratify any product thereof. That is not merely "original thinking" - - -that is statuatory LAW.

goodlookin1
05-19-2011, 9:15 PM
Hearing the news of the filibuster on this libtard was one of 2 highlights of my day! Great job, GOP! The other was the news of the new SAF lawsuit challenge on out of state purchases.

yellowfin
05-19-2011, 9:31 PM
The Nordyke panel relied heavily on Abortion law in their opinion.Which makes sense because it was a disgusting, half conceived butchered mess that never developed as naturally intended.

ddestruel
05-19-2011, 10:36 PM
Baloney! The right to privacy (Griswold vs. Conn.) was decided by a Surpreme Court that considered this right to have evolved in a living document Constitution. It's the proponents of originalism that have no problem with the government telling you how to behave in your own bedroom.



its not up to a judge to decide that a new inturpretation of a black and white law needs to be applied based upon his perspective. his job is to apply the law as it is written if there is a problem then there are processes to update the constitution and laws.

I want to projectile vomit every time I hear "living document." The Founders gave a great method to update the Constitution to suit the changing times: Amendments


blocking him is a start, kagan and Sotomayor both have voiced the view that the constitution is a living document too, actually we could say the mcdonald 4 have, these decenters all voiced over time that the second amendment is outdated and not compatible with modern times. they continue to apply the living document therory ...........

im tired of justices bending the law to thier idea of what society has evolved to. if society has evolved let society vote to update things not one person, 3 or 9.

vantec08
05-20-2011, 3:15 AM
Dam right, dd. I still remember Ginsberg laying down the rap that her decisions are always tempered with "is it right?" "Right" according to WHOM? Using that logic means law is meaningless.

Hogxtz
05-20-2011, 7:16 AM
Hey, I know! Lets get Barry to nominate G. Hoffman to the 9th. Than we could work on getting him into the high court!!! That would be awesome for gun rights!!!

socal2310
05-20-2011, 7:33 AM
Baloney! The right to privacy (Griswold vs. Conn.) was decided by a Surpreme Court that considered this right to have evolved in a living document Constitution. It's the proponents of originalism that have no problem with the government telling you how to behave in your own bedroom.

Yes, and every sitting advocate of the "living document" theory I know of wants to interpret away the second amendment. They would be somewhat less controversial if they always ruled in favor of individual liberty. Instead, we have to deal with two competing sets of authoritarians who ultimately almost always rule in favor of the state.

Ryan

ConcernedCitizen
05-20-2011, 8:26 AM
For everyone that voted for Brown for Gov, based on the single issue of his purported position on 2A rights, how's that working for you? Counties and the state legislature are in the midst of new incursions to our rights. Yes, he may veto some of the new laws, but that remains to be seen, and I am skeptical. Meanwhile all his other policies and positions are bankrupting us even further.

You're entitled to vote any single issue you so desire. My point is that it's easy for elected officials to misrepresent or modify their position on a single issue. And their consistent positions on other issues are far more damaging. Then where are you?

bulgron
05-20-2011, 8:56 AM
For everyone that voted for Brown for Gov, based on the single issue of his purported position on 2A rights, how's that working for you?

Don't know yet. He hasn't had an opportunity to deal with a gun law just yet.

One thing's for sure, he can't possibly be any worse than Meg would have been for us, and chances are good that he'll be better than she ever would have been.

GOEX FFF
05-20-2011, 9:50 AM
Don't know yet. He hasn't had an opportunity to deal with a gun law just yet.

One thing's for sure, he can't possibly be any worse than Meg would have been for us, and chances are good that he'll be better than she ever would have been.


I can't ever imagine Meg would have had a news article about her and her
"3 gun arsenal". Muchless even a 1 gun "armory". :rolleyes:

bwiese
05-20-2011, 12:26 PM
You're entitled to vote any single issue you so desire. My point is that it's easy for elected officials to misrepresent or modify their position on a single issue. And their consistent positions on other issues are far more damaging. Then where are you?

I worry about RKBA first based on the "fix one thing first" strategy.

Otherwise you dilute your pro-gun stance into a punchbowl mix of crap that doesn't go anywhere.

It's especially important to support non-traditional supporters of RKBA to send a message to the lukewarm "yeah I'm progun but I haven't done anything for you but I want you to think otherwise" CA Republicans.

Also, it's most interesting that our supposed pro-gun Republican party in US Congress folded on anti-RKBA justices Sotomayor and Kagan, but it apparently seems the Goodwin Liu challenge is in large part due to pro-choice stance. Somehow Congress is more sensitve to pro-life drama instead of constitutional gun rights and that means we need to up our game.

GrayWolf09
05-20-2011, 1:33 PM
If I get involved in politics I am a single-issue (2A) oriented. A friend sent me this article (http://www.lifenews.com/2011/03/28/senate-committee-hearing-on-pro-abortion-goodwin-liu-this-week/) about federal appeals court nominee Goodwin Liu. Try to ignore that it is from a pro-life website and read about him. I admit that am making an assumption that a "liberal University of California law professor" who believes that the Constitution is a “living document" cannot be good for the Second Amendment yet I have not heard a thing from any 2A related organization about this guy. Are they sliding one past us? Should we be urging opposition to Liu’s nomination?

From: lifenews.com (http://www.lifenews.com/2011/03/28/senate-committee-hearing-on-pro-abortion-goodwin-liu-this-week/)

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on pro-abortion federal appeals court nominee Goodwin Liu, whom President Barack Obama picked for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Liu, liberal a University of California law professor, is slated to come before the panel on Thursday, where he will face strong opposition again from Republicans.

He is a left-wing abortion supporter who conservative legal guru Ed Whelan observed was so left-wing that former “White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel initially vetoed” his candidacy for the Ninth Circuit “on the ground that Liu’s left-wing record made him too controversial.” But Whelan says new White House counsel Robert Bauer “eager to please the Left, successfully pushed back.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee planned to vote on Liu’s nomination on March 17, but Republicans requested the vote be postponed. Instead, the committee approved Edward Chen, an Obama selection for the District Court for the Northern District of California. Pro-life advocates oppose Chen because of his time spent as an attorney for the pro-abortion ACLU.

In December, Democrats gave up on a vote on Liu as a deal brokered between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with White House officials allowed votes on several less controversial nominees but not Liu.

Family Research Council legislative director Tom McClusky has commented on Liu, saying he is “a firm believer in the rule of international law and has shown nothing but disrespect for the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

And Whelen, writing at National Review, says Liu is a problem because he believes the Constitution to be a “living” document, the same view as those jurists on the Supreme Court who invented an unlimited right to abortion throughout pregnancy in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases. “Goodwin Liu has urged judicial invention (usually in an “interstitial” role) of constitutional rights,” he writes.

Liu “presents a volatile mix of aggressive left-wing ideology and raw inexperience,” Whelan adds.

“Liu is closely aligned with various left-wing groups. For example, he is (or recently was) on the boards of directors of the American Constitution Society, the ACLU of Northern California, and the National Women’s Law Center. He apparently practiced law for about two years,” he notes.

Liu has said he believes in the pro-abortion notion of a changing Constitution that can, for example, allow for unlimited abortion rights.

“What we mean by fidelity is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation,” Liu has said.

Liu clerked for pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, worked in the Clinton administration, and spoke out against Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

So, basically you are opposed to him because he is "pro-abortion." A woman's right to not be forced to bear a child was upheld by the US Supreme Court, so it is the law of the land. You don't like him because he is not an "activist" judge who would overturn Roe v. Wade?:eek:

Or should liberals have filibustered conservative justices because they disagreed with their politics? Then no one would get appointed would they unless one party had 60 votes in the senate? You are changing the standards.:(

It makes perfect sense that, absent any Constitutional Amendment to the contrary concerning the case at hand, the judge(s) is/are duty bound by oath to follow "EXACTLY" the Constitution and rule accordingly on the case.

Any failure on the judge's/judges' part(s) is an abrogation of the judge's/judges' duty and constitutes either, malfeasance, nonfeasance, or misfeasance.

Any judge/judges who violate their sworn Oath of Office should be forthwith impeached, removed from office and prosecuted criminally for their dereliction of duty!!!

Agreed, that is why I know you will join me in calling for the impeachment of the majority justices in the Citizen's United case. In that case the parties had briefed a narrow issue but the court asked for arguments on a much larger issue and then overturned over 100 years of established case law. If that is not an "activist" judge then what is, or does the term activist only describe judges in cases you do not like?:)

Mr. Liu, I will tell you exactly how the Constitution should be applied "today...in light of changing needs, conditions and understandings of our society". It should be applied EXACTLY how it was applied "at the founding".

What in the world does this mean? That the 2A gives its citizens the right to keep and bear arms that existed when the Constitution was adopted? That the court should not consider Constitutional questions involving the internet because it was not around when the Constitution was adopted? If you want to freeze time at the late 1700's be my guest, but don't expect me to join you.;)

bwiese
05-20-2011, 1:50 PM
Citizen's United[/I] case.

Nobody has rationally told me why Citizen's United is bad other than a "boo hoo big companies".

The people that staff those companies whose livelihoods are affected have a right to be heard thru company communications just as much as other individuals or groups.

Otherwise, you get into a nasty slippery slope about which groups get to speak and which don't - and someone gets to pick the winners.

The other opposition to Citizen's United is, "ummm, get, we're too stupid and we'll get swayed by BigCo communications so we need to shut them up so we can't hear bad things that might change our opinion."

What expressers of this above sentiment need is earplugs, not court rulemakings.

Free speech is free speech. Let it roll....

Uxi
05-20-2011, 2:03 PM
So, basically you are opposed to him because he is "pro-abortion." A woman's right to not be forced to bear a child was upheld by the US Supreme Court, so it is the law of the land.

So are many absurd decisions. That doesn't mean they're right. Slaughterhouse is a horrible decision and should be overturned ASAP.



Or should liberals have filibustered conservative justices because they disagreed with their politics? Then no one would get appointed would they unless one party had 60 votes in the senate? You are changing the standards.:(


They already did that, from Bork on. One can debate the litmus tests that have developed for each party, but one shouldn't be surprised, if not think it perfectly fair, that they get tit for tat on their own nominees. Yet when what should be a completely onerous choice by liberal POTUS (Ginsburg and Sotomayor especially), the Republicans didn't respond in kind, which is to the credit of most of those Republican Senators.



Agreed, that is why I know you will join me in calling for the impeachment of the majority justices in the Citizen's United case. In that case the parties had briefed a narrow issue but the court asked for arguments on a much larger issue and then overturned over 100 years of established case law. If that is not an "activist" judge then what is, or does the term activist only describe judges in cases you do not like?:)


Again, just because it was precedent, doesn't mean it's right. Dred Scott was a horribly bad decision, as is Slaughterhouse, and bad decisions like those can't be overturned soon enough.


What in the world does this mean? That the 2A gives its citizens the right to keep and bear arms that existed when the Constitution was adopted? That the court should not consider Constitutional questions involving the internet because it was not around when the Constitution was adopted? If you want to freeze time at the late 1700's be my guest, but don't expect me to join you.;)

I expect our Representatives and Senators to uphold their oaths and accept the Constitution and properly amend it if the need to "unfreeze" time reaches a large consensus, which is the provision in the Constitution expressly provided for that purpose.

But yes, barring a legally passed and ratified Amendment, all "arms" from cannons to battleships, tanks, explosives, even nuclear weapons should otherwise be obviously implicit in the conception of the 2nd Amendment as a mechanism to prevent our government from becoming a tyranny in addition to providing for the natural right of self defense.

GrayWolf09
05-20-2011, 4:05 PM
Nobody has rationally told me why Citizen's United is bad other than a "boo hoo big companies".

The people that staff those companies whose livelihoods are affected have a right to be heard thru company communications just as much as other individuals or groups.

Otherwise, you get into a nasty slippery slope about which groups get to speak and which don't - and someone gets to pick the winners.

The other opposition to Citizen's United is, "ummm, get, we're too stupid and we'll get swayed by BigCo communications so we need to shut them up so we can't hear bad things that might change our opinion."

What expressers of this above sentiment need is earplugs, not court rulemakings.

Free speech is free speech. Let it roll....

The issue in Citizen's United is not free speech. The CEO of a corporation, the corporation itself and its employees are perfectly free to express whatever point of view they want. What they have not been free to do is to expend unlimited sums in the furtherance of those views. Citizens United overturned over 100 years of case law and dramatically changed the balance of power in elections.

Remember President Obama's State of the Union speech in 2010 in which he criticized the Citizen's United decision because it would flood the elections with corporate money and Justice AIito was there shaking his head? In the 2010 elections, of the top 10 independent expenditure groups, 3 were unions and the rest were front organizations for corporations and the wealthy. The US Chamber of Commerce alone spent more than all three unions combined. There was and is little disclosure where the money came from or even, in some cases, where it went. Looks like Justice Alito was wrong.

Corporations already own most of Congress, because our system is awash in money and corruption. Citizen's United will just make it worse. The mere threat of substantial expenditures on the other side may force a legislator to cowtow to special interests even more than they do now. This is not, of course, limited to either party.

You may think it is free speech now but what happens when Hugo Chavez through CITGO or the Chinese through wholly owned corporations start throwing massive amounts of money into American elections with no disclosure? Still free speech? It may come back to bite you.:rolleyes:

rogervzv
05-20-2011, 4:17 PM
That makes no sense that the constitution should be applied EXACTLY at the founding. The whole point of having amendments to the constitution is to give the people a chance to make changes and improvements.

Goodwin Liu is actually a very intelligent scholar. Before you bash on him try to take some time to listen to one of his lectures and what he has to say... I think he would make a great addition to the 9th court of appeals.

How he performs there should then determine if he should sit at the highest court or not.

The man is a wretch. When he says he supports a "living constitution" he means that the Constitution is whatever lives in his head. Plus, he made many extremely intemperate remarks about Justices Alito and Roberts. The man lacks judicial temperament and should never be a judge.

GrayWolf09
05-20-2011, 9:23 PM
So are many absurd decisions. That doesn't mean they're right. Slaughterhouse is a horrible decision and should be overturned ASAP.

You only got one vote on the court that agrees with you.

They already did that, from Bork on. One can debate the litmus tests that have developed for each party, but one shouldn't be surprised, if not think it perfectly fair, that they get tit for tat on their own nominees. Yet when what should be a completely onerous choice by liberal POTUS (Ginsburg and Sotomayor especially), the Republicans didn't respond in kind, which is to the credit of most of those Republican Senators.

I don't know what you are talking about. Roberts, Alito, and Scalia were all confirmed and they are as hard right as it gets. Sotomayor and Kagan are middle of the road. What happened to all that right-wing whining about appointees being entitled to an up or down vote. Oh that was before when it was our appointees. Hypocritical much!

Again, just because it was precedent, doesn't mean it's right. Dred Scott was a horribly bad decision, as is Slaughterhouse, and bad decisions like those can't be overturned soon enough.

So you want the government to force women to bear children. Do you include rape and incest? Do you want to prohibit birth control also?

I expect our Representatives and Senators to uphold their oaths and accept the Constitution and properly amend it if the need to "unfreeze" time reaches a large consensus, which is the provision in the Constitution expressly provided for that purpose.

But yes, barring a legally passed and ratified Amendment, all "arms" from cannons to battleships, tanks, explosives, even nuclear weapons should otherwise be obviously implicit in the conception of the 2nd Amendment as a mechanism to prevent our government from becoming a tyranny in addition to providing for the natural right of self defense.

I agree with your 2A interpretation, but that was not what the founders intended. They had no idea those things would come to be?



You still haven't answered my question. How does this work:

"Mr. Liu, I will tell you exactly how the Constitution should be applied "today...in light of changing needs, conditions and understandings of our society". It should be applied EXACTLY how it was applied "at the founding".

formerTexan
05-20-2011, 9:33 PM
You may think it is free speech now but what happens when Hugo Chavez through CITGO or the Chinese through wholly owned corporations start throwing massive amounts of money into American elections with no disclosure? Still free speech? It may come back to bite you.:rolleyes:

I think that already happened with all those "small amount" untraceable donations to 0dumbo's 2008 campaign, done with pre-paid credit cards. Obongo could've fixed the web site to at least demand some info, like name and address, but didn't.

And regarding the Chamber of Commerce, where's the proof? All that story was from a false accusation from 0dumber and gang in 2010. Nothing but smoke and mirrors from the morons at Think Regress generated "report". Chamber of Commerce has denied the charge, and no one has come up with proof, a smoking gun if you will. But no one seems to talk about Government Motors, who got bailed out in Canada, AND the US, but still somehow formed a PAC to contribute to political campaigns?! Where did their PAC money come from? How about the SEIU? Don't they collect dues world wide, where did their political contribution money come from? Why don't they show that they haven't used any foreign money? See how this works? But I guess you already made up your mind that corporations not be able to effectively voice their opposition to candidates, laws and policies that affect them, and ultimately, their customers.

GrayWolf09
05-20-2011, 10:04 PM
I think that already happened with all those "small amount" untraceable donations to 0dumbo's 2008 campaign, done with pre-paid credit cards. Obongo could've fixed the web site to at least demand some info, like name and address, but didn't.

And regarding the Chamber of Commerce, where's the proof? All that story was from a false accusation from 0dumber and gang in 2010. Nothing but smoke and mirrors from the morons at Think Regress generated "report". Chamber of Commerce has denied the charge, and no one has come up with proof, a smoking gun if you will. But no one seems to talk about Government Motors, who got bailed out in Canada, AND the US, but still somehow formed a PAC to contribute to political campaigns?! Where did their PAC money come from? How about the SEIU? Don't they collect dues world wide, where did their political contribution money come from? Why don't they show that they haven't used any foreign money? See how this works? But I guess you already made up your mind that corporations not be able to effectively voice their opposition to candidates, laws and policies that affect them, and ultimately, their customers.

Racist much? You may not be but when you use racist language people will believe you are.

If you want the proof of what I said you can go here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/index.php

Your comment about corporations not being able to effectively voice their opposition to candidates, laws and policies is simply incomprehensible. They own most of the lawmakers already. A huge percentage of the legislation in California (and I would bet Texas too) is authored by special interests on both sides of the aisle. What I don't understand is why corporations want the ability to support or oppose candidates clandestinely with unlimited resources.

socal2310
05-20-2011, 10:54 PM
So, basically you are opposed to him because he is "pro-abortion." A woman's right to not be forced to bear a child was upheld by the US Supreme Court, so it is the law of the land. You don't like him because he is not an "activist" judge who would overturn Roe v. Wade?:eek:

I kind of tuned you out after the first paragraph (and, I admit, every subsequent post) since you ignored TWO statements that ought to have prevented your jumping his case:

1.) If I get involved in politics I am a single-issue (2A) oriented.

2.) Try to ignore that it is from a pro-life website and read about him.

He is concerned about Liu because he believes there is a strong correlation between a judge's preferred interpretive framework and how such a judge will rule on firearms. That correlation is very well established. Right or wrong, like it or not, that's how it is. Those who prefer the "living constitution" rubric also tend to vigorously oppose the right to keep and bear arms.

Being a single-issue voter means throwing other issues under the bus when it serves the purpose of advancing the primary issue.

Ryan

Quiet
05-20-2011, 11:14 PM
If they believe that the US Constitution is a "living document", then they also believe that the Second Amendment is not an individual right but a state right.

formerTexan
05-21-2011, 12:05 AM
Racist much? You may not be but when you use racist language people will believe you are.

If you want the proof of what I said you can go here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/index.php

Your comment about corporations not being able to effectively voice their opposition to candidates, laws and policies is simply incomprehensible. They own most of the lawmakers already. A huge percentage of the legislation in California (and I would bet Texas too) is authored by special interests on both sides of the aisle. What I don't understand is why corporations want the ability to support or oppose candidates clandestinely with unlimited resources.

Ah, call the messenger racist, that's the ticket :rolleyes:
Where does that link exactly tell me that the Chamber of Commerce got foreign money?

I believe that big chunks of money given to PACs should be disclosed, but given that the 1st and 3rd highest spending PACs are the DNC's in 2010 (totaling over $100 million, hey where did their money come from? The angry old man soros?), that might not happen very soon. In addition, most companies form their own PACs, like GEPAC and "Walt Disney Productions Employee PAC", and then the PAC sends money to individual campaigns.

Realize that the NRA also has a PAC, so would you like NRA membership dues be counted as money towards a PAC? Would you like many of the CalGun's membership names listed somewhere for all to see? Where's the line on privacy? What about people who paid 30K plus recently to go to hussein obama's (see I can use his name) dinner? Should they go on a list too? Only for "real people" versus corps? "Chilling effect" has a meaning here.

Scarecrow Repair
05-21-2011, 7:33 AM
Ah, call the messenger racist, that's the ticket

Messengers avoid name calling, *including racist lingo*, if they actually want their message read. Those who just rant come across as just ranting and having no message worth wasting further time on.

kcbrown
05-21-2011, 4:24 PM
Baloney! The right to privacy (Griswold vs. Conn.) was decided by a Surpreme Court that considered this right to have evolved in a living document Constitution.


So what? That doesn't automatically mean that the decision in question was contrary to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, since:


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Some people believe that the only Constitutionally-protected rights we have are the ones that were explicitly enumerated. Were that the original intent, then the 9th Amendment would not even be there.


The problem with the "living document" philosophy is not that it can result in additional rights, it's that it can result in a reduction of them.




It's the proponents of originalism that have no problem with the government telling you how to behave in your own bedroom.

No, that's true only of those who are either unfamiliar with or do not care about the purpose of the Constitution and the government that was created through it. And such people exist in both the "originalist" camp and the "living document" camp.

Scarecrow Repair
05-21-2011, 9:52 PM
I've never understood the argument that the constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy. Not only does the 9th amendment explicitly say there are other unenumerated rights, but it's hard to imagine the 4th amendment as having a purpose other than guaranteeing that your private life is not something the state gets to muck around in at will. Just as the 2nd amendment doesn't explicitly say we have a right to self-defense, neither does the 4th have to say we are guaranteed the right to privacy.