Of all the bad judges there, Ortega had the most enmity against the written California Constitution and its original intent (he was the only judge to vote to strike down Prop. 8 on marriage after it had passed). And Liu is even to the left of Ortega!
Sadly, there is a growing group of unpatriotic liars who raise their right hands and swear to support and defend the specific, written constitutions of California and of the United States, but they intend nothing of the sort. Goodwin Liu is one of these un-American deceivers because he refuses to abide by the plain reading and original construction of both the state and federal constitutions we've all agreed to live under. No, Goodwin Liu is a radical, liberal, communistic, political activist who would impose his own values on everyone else by legislating from the bench, a clear violation of his oath of office and of the specific words of our constitution. Even to the left of Carlos Moreno, Liu, if confirmed, would become the new Rose Bird of the California Supreme Court.
Mr. Liu holds a radical view of constitutional rights. For example, in his November 2008 Stanford Law Review article he supports a judicial role in establishing constitutional welfare rights-i.e., "affirmative rights," to education, shelter, subsistence, health care and the like, or to the money these things cost. This is the view of rights President Obama raised that caused a stir, and which even liberal Judge Sotomayor rejected when asked if she took such a view during her confirmation hearing.
In that same Stanford Law Review article, Mr. Liu wrote that judges should engage in "socially situated modes of reasoning that appeal ... to the culturally and historically contingent meanings of particular social goods in our own society" and to "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."
To which most rational people would ask: Huh? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
In his work, "Keeping Faith with the Constitution", Mr. Liu's goal clearly is to create a judicially enforceable, constitutional right to welfare:
Indeed, it’s comical to see how Liu, in back-to-back paragraphs (p. 25), purports to distinguish his approach from that of “living Constitution” advocates. The “living Constitution” approach, you see, understands the Constitution as “grow[ing] and evolv[ing] over time as the conditions, needs, and values of our society change” and contends that “such evolution is inherent to the constitutional design because the Framers intended the document to serve as a general charter for a growing nation and a changing world.” That approach maintains that “constitutional interpretation must be informed by contemporary norms and circumstances, not simply by its original meaning.” In supposed sharp contrast, the “constitutional fidelity” approach maintains that the Constitution must be interpreted “in light of the conditions and challenges faced by succeeding generations.” Its words and principles must be interpreted “in ways that sustain their vitality over time.” Judges must ask “how those principles should be applied today in order to preserve their power and meaning in light of the concerns, conditions, and evolving norms of our society."In a 2006 article entitled "Education, Equality, and National Citizenship", Liu suggests that the Constitution "assigns equal constitutional status to negative rights against government oppression and positive rights to government assistance on the ground that both are essential to liberty.
Mr. Liu has stated: “…it becomes pretty clear why ‘originalism’ or ‘strict construction’ don’t make a lot of sense… Many of the broad phrases – equal protection of the law, due process of law, unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of speech – all of these phrases are quite broad and indeterminate… The Framers deliberately chose these broad words so they would be adaptable over time. ” To put it mildly, this is ridiculous.
Mr. Liu recklessly attacked the nominations of Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. In the case of Roberts, he wrote, in an op-ed, that "[h]is legal career is studded with activities unfriendly to civil rights, abortion rights, and the environment." These unfounded charges were dismissed by judicial experts on both sides of the aisle and Roberts was confirmed with bi-partisan support.
Mr. Liu actually testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee against the confirmation of Alito. Liu testified that then-Judge Alito was "at the margin, not the mainstream," and that the America envisioned by his record on the bench "is not the America we know. Nor is it the America we aspire to be." Alito was also confirmed with bi-partisan support.
It has been noted that Mr. Liu doesn't meet the standards for federal judges outlined by the American Bar Association. These standards include "at least 12 years' experience in the practice of law" and "substantial courtroom and trial experience." Mr. Liu, who is only 39 years old, hasn't even been out of law school for 12 years and has no experience as a trial lawyer.
42 of California's 58 county district attorneys opposed Liu's nomination in a March 2010 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying they believe Liu is hostile to the death penalty.
Mr. Liu thinks racial quotas should continue indefinitely and in remarks before the American Constitution Society in August of 2003 advocates reviving "the idea of remedying societal discrimination as a justification for affirmative action."
Mr. Liu offered an amicus brief to the California Supreme Court in which he and others argued that the state's ban on same-sex marriage (approved twice by the voters of California) was unconstitutional.
Yet another turd in the punchbowl that was once California.
