Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has filed cloture on the nomination of radical professor Goodwin Liu to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Simply put, Mr. Liu must never be confirmed to this lifetime appointment, and senators should use every tool available to make sure he is stopped.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has gone out of his way to work with Democrats to move along judicial nominations at a steady pace. But his good will has been met with contempt as Democrats continue to push the most radical nominees forward.
Sen. Grassley: In the first few months that I have been Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, I have worked in good faith to move forward with consensus nominees. As I said a couple days ago, by any fair measure, we are moving nominees at a brisk pace. The Senate has been in session for only 44 days this Congress. In that short time, we have confirmed 19 judges. In fact, thus far we have taken positive action on 43 of 63 nominees submitted this Congress. I want to emphasize that we have taken positive action on 68 percent of the judicial nominees submitted in this Congress. … [R]ather than continuing to move forward with consensus nominees, the Majority Leader chose to throw up a detour and proceed to one of the President’s most controversial nominees, Mr. McConnell.
Well, now Sen. Reid has chosen to push through not one of the most, but the most controversial nominee we have seen in a long time. Mr. Liu is as radical as they come; there is hardly anybody to his left.
Liu is perhaps most well known for his extreme view that there is a constitutional right to "welfare," a view that was rejected even by leftist Judge Sonia Sotomayor during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. He has also been a vocal advocate of a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
Those views help expose the real danger to our freedoms with this nomination: Mr. Liu’s judicial philosophy. He believes those constitutional rights must be developed, because he believes the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document that the more enlightened judges (like him, presumably) should continue to mold.
In a 2008 Stanford Law Review article, he argued that judges should “determine, at the moment of decision, whether our collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree that they can be persuasively crystallized and credibly absorbed into legal doctrine.”