So, though there is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage in the text of the Constitution, and it has never been recognized, "our collective values" on homosexuality "have converged to a degree that" judges should write it into the Constitution.
This alone should discredit Mr. Liu from any consideration to be a judge at any level. We do not want judges to conduct social experiments in the courtroom. We want judges to stand for the Constitution (as written) and the rule of law. We want “fidelity to the law,” as Justice Sotomayor referred to it, and Mr. Liu is the exact opposite of “fidelity to the law.”
Liu himself advocated for giving much weight to a judge’s judicial philosophy. In a piece on Bloomberg in which Liu attacked Chief Justice John Roberts on his nomination, Liu wrote:
There’s no doubt Roberts has a brilliant legal mind. Twice Harvard-educated, he has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court and since 2003 has served on the powerful federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. But a Supreme Court nominee must be evaluated on more than legal intellect.
Because he would sit with life tenure on the nation’s highest court, it’s 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.
Liu’s judicial philosophy cannot be more dangerous, since it could mean something different at any given point in time. Any senator who doesn’t stand firmly against such a rogue nomination violates his oath to "support and defend the Constitution."
Even those senators with serious reservations about the filibuster of judicial nominees must reconsider their position in light of the Democrats' use of it during the Bush administration. As they fight to protect what they believe to be the proper way of confirming judges, they must use every tool available, including the filibuster, to protect the Constitution from radical operatives like Liu, who will destroy the Constitution and remake it as they see fit.
Pro-lifers have had to do this for years. Abortion is unconstitutional, period. But even as we defend the unalienable right to life, we must work within the framework that we have been given, and we, therefore, support measures to inform women of the perils of abortion, for example. That does not mean in any way that we support or concede that abortion does not violate the Constitution, but we work within the framework that is in placein order to protect life.
In the same manner, senators have every right to use processes which Democrats have put in place for judicial confirmations in order to protect our liberties and the Constitution.
As if Liu’s rogue judicial philosophy weren’t enough, Mr. Liu apparently has serious memory lapses as well. Apparently, the distinguished professor from the prestigious University of California Berkeley School of Law conveniently "forgot" to disclose 117 of his most controversial speeches and writings in his questionnaire to the Judiciary Committee. One of the speeches he "forgot" to mention was a commencement speech at UC Berkeley Law!
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) addressed the issue in a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont):
At best, this nominee's extraordinary disregard for the Committee’s constitutional role demonstrates incompetence; at worst, it creates the impression that he knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the Committee.
Sen. Sessions was very kind in his portrayal. It would be very hard for any reasonable person to believe this was done in error.
This is one of those line-in-the-sand moments. The vote on Goodwin Liu will give Americans a chance to see behind the rhetoric and take a look at what their elected official is willing to do to protect our liberties.
This vote is likely to define some races in 2012.
If not now, when? If not Liu, who?