<< The Meaningless Statement | Main | April 19 >>

WSJ on Liu Nomination

The Wall Street Journal has this editorial, subtitled "A liberal nominee of illiberal temperament."

Yesterday, we awarded Senator Leahy the howler of the day award. The nominee himself comes in a close second:

Such statements [as his attack on Alito] included "unnecessarily flowery" and "colorful language," Mr. Liu said at yesterday's hearing, but they shouldn't trouble voters because they are irrelevant to being a judge. While professors are paid to be "provocative" and to probe and invent, he said, judges are supposed to be neutral arbiters. "Whatever I've written in books and articles would have no bearing on my role as a judge," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee. So those polemics were merely for political show and tell?

No bearing? Yeah, right.


After years of seeing so-called moderates appointed by Dem Presidents to the Ninth Circuit, the burden of proof should be on Liu to show that he wouldn't add to the problem. Given his racist comments and obvious affinity for using the courts to adopt his vision of how society should be, he hasn't remotely met that burden.

And yes, when you disparage an "all white jury" simply because it is all-white, you are being a racist. Liu should apologize, and Obama should too for sending such an unqualified person to the Senate.

"Whatever I've written in books and articles would have no bearing on my role as a judge."

Point One: What Liu has written should have no bearing on his possible role as a judge, even when, as with the death penalty case critique Kent has discussed, he was writing about what was wrong with Alito's performance IN HIS ROLE AS A JUDGE.

Good. Glad we got that straight.

Point Two: To translate for the uninitiated, "What Republican nominees have written should be examined in detail, but what Democratic nominees have written should be ignored."

Glad we got that straight too.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives