So, Liu Is Out and Republican Hypocrisy Continues unabated.

[Geo Patric]

when Democrats balked at confirming some of then-President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, Senate Republicans widely declared that filibustering a judicial nominee violates the Constitution. Late last month, however, Senate Republicans embraced the tactic, almost unanimously joining a filibuster of professor Goodwin Liu's nomination to a federal appeals court.

- Ian Millhiser, Los Angeles Times

now, this counts as hypocrisy, technically, but it also falls under the rubric of "turnabout is fair play". just as with 'corporate contributions', you can oppose a practice and still engage in it if your opponent refuses to comply with your ethical stance.

but, do we not have a richt to expect the a degree of honesty in the arguments against the nominee? The republicans cited Liu's views on welfare, accusing him of "communism" (Grassley, R-Iowa). But, the facts are otherwise.

Liu published a lengthy response to [Frank Michelman's] aggressive vision of judicially created welfare rights. In it, he takes on Michelman's vision, saying it would give judges far too much power to overrule democratically elected officials.

Liu calls for "legislative [as opposed to judicial] supremacy" in defining the scope of welfare rights, and he explains that it would have been utterly inappropriate for the courts to second-guess Congress' decision to roll back welfare rights in its 1996 welfare reform law. It doesn't sound like something a conservative would object to, right?

Yet Senate Republicans managed to distort this cry for judicial restraint into proof that Liu would create massive new welfare programs by judicial fiat. . . . Liu's critics seemed to ignore the fact that conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia embraces a similar role for the judiciary [per Saenz v. Roe]. If Liu's stance on constitutional welfare rights disqualifies him from the federal bench, it also disqualifies Scalia.

not happy with that patent lie, they went for more:

There's some evidence that Republicans targeted Liu to exact payback for his testimony during Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearing. . . . Every single word of Liu's critique of Alito was scrupulously accurate, and leading conservatives such as Clinton inquisitor Kenneth Starr and torture memo author John Yoo — both of whom supported Liu's nomination — found nothing in Liu's testimony that should keep him off the bench. Nevertheless, numerous GOP senators cited Liu's Alito testimony to explain their vote against him.

these folks do not deserve to hold power. Alan Simpson is right, republican political policy can be reduced to a single statement: ""Let's forget what we need to do and . . . stick it to the president"

geo.

 

[Renae]

- Ian Millhiser, Los Angeles Times

now, this counts as hypocrisy, technically, but it also falls under the rubric of "turnabout is fair play". just as with 'corporate contributions', you can oppose a practice and still engage in it if your opponent refuses to comply with your ethical stance.

but, do we not have a richt to expect the a degree of honesty in the arguments against the nominee? The republicans cited Liu's views on welfare, accusing him of "communism" (Grassley, R-Iowa). But, the facts are otherwise.

not happy with that patent lie, they went for more:

these folks do not deserve to hold power. Alan Simpson is right, republican political policy can be reduced to a single statement: ""Let's forget what we need to do and . . . stick it to the president"

geo.

2.5 years, 1 nomination sunk.

How many did the Dems destroy in Bush's first 2.5 years again?

Spare us the silliness.

 

[Geo Patric]

2.5 years, 1 nomination sunk.

How many did the Dems destroy in Bush's first 2.5 years again?

Spare us the silliness.

it is ok with you that your representatives lied. noted.

yeah, you sound like a modern republican. you do not read very carefully. it was not their refusal, it was their pretense at reason. simple deliberate lies that had nothing whatsoever to do with Liu but painting Obama as a threat... as they have been doing since he was nominated.

geo.

 

[Renae]

it is ok with you that your representatives lied. noted.

yeah, you sound like a modern republican. you do not read very carefully. it was not their refusal, it was their pretense at reason. simple deliberate lies that had nothing whatsoever to do with Liu but painting Obama as a threat... as they have been doing since he was nominated.

geo.

Lui is a crackpot far left radical who had no, I repeat NO right to even be nominated.

 

[Renae]

And you are being dishonest, not a surprise, about WHAT the Republican's complaints were:

Republicans pointed to Liu’s harsh criticism of then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito in testimony delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006.

Liu told the committee that Alito’s record envisions an America “where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse” or “the FBI may install a camera where you sleep on the promise that they won’t turn it on unless an informant is in the room.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a former member of the Gang of 14, said Liu’s testimony revealed him to be a left-wing ideologue.

“There are boundaries. … For a man of the law to go after Judge Alito’s philosophy as being something that really is backward-thinking, un-American, deserving of scorn and fear, shows to me he is an ideologue,” said Graham, who voted for Obama’s two Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Senate hands Obama his first defeat on a judicial nominee - The Hill's Floor Action

I will also point you to DEMOCRAT Senator Jim Webb:

In a striking floor speech, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia laid out his case for why he would not vote to confirm Liu if debate opened on the nominee, though Webb did vote to break the filibuster Thursday.

“Intellect in and of itself does not always give a person wisdom, nor does it guarantee good judgment, and the root word of ‘judgment’ is, of course, ‘judge,’” Webb said Wednesday. “And that is our duty today, to decide whether professor Liu’s almost complete lack of practical legal experience, coupled with his history of intemperate, politically charged statements, allow us a measure of comfort and predictability as to whether he would be fair and balanced while sitting in one of the highest courts in the land.”



Read more: Senate GOP filibusters Goodwin Liu - Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com

 

[Geo Patric]

And you are being dishonest, not a surprise, about WHAT the Republican's complaints were:


Senate hands Obama his first defeat on a judicial nominee - The Hill's Floor Action

I will also point you to DEMOCRAT Senator Jim Webb:

i was not in the least dishonest. i posted QUOTES from republicans that say what they say. . i did not say that there might not be honest disgreement. I disagree with Mr Webb, but he is welcome to an opinion as are all the republicans. it is not opinion that I am compalaining of but misrepresentation of Liu and his record with the very obvious express interest of painting m. Obama as 'dangerous'. m. Webb does not do that.

geo.

 

[Renae]

i was not in the least dishonest. i posted QUOTES from republicans that say what they say. . i did not say that there might not be honest disgreement. I disagree with Mr Webb, but he is welcome to an opinion as are all the republicans. it is not opinion that I am compalaining of but misrepresentation of Liu and his record with the very obvious express interest of painting m. Obama as 'dangerous'. m. Webb does not do that.

geo.

You're regurgitating talking points and giving only part of the story.


Lui wasn't qualified, he IS a radical in his judicial outlook, and deserved to be shot down in flames.

 

[TurtleDude]

Lui is a crackpot far left radical who had no, I repeat NO right to even be nominated.

the demtards blocked a man that all four living dem solicitor generals endorsed

they blocked Estrada even though he worked for the Clinton Solicitor General

They blocked him even though the ABA gave him its highest endorsement

They blocked him even though he had a better resume than Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was nominated for the Court of appeals

they blocked him because he was a hispanic and they didn't want Bush to get any credit with the latinos nor did they want Bush to elevate him to the USSC

 

[Geo Patric]

You're regurgitating talking points and giving only part of the story.

a non response. repeating bull**** from unqualified sources deserves to be dismissed. THOSE above are fully qualified to offer an opinion.

Lui wasn't qualified, he IS a radical in his judicial outlook, and deserved to be shot down in flames.

sorry, but YOU are not qualified to say whether Liu is qualified. The ABA is, Ken Starr is, John Loo is. You make claims - you do not show them. Your masters have primed you well.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

the demtards blocked a man that all four living dem solicitor generals endorsed

they blocked Estrada even though he worked for the Clinton Solicitor General

They blocked him even though the ABA gave him its highest endorsement

They blocked him even though he had a better resume than Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was nominated for the Court of appeals

they blocked him because he was a hispanic and they didn't want Bush to get any credit with the latinos nor did they want Bush to elevate him to the USSC

an opinion that MIGHT have validity, Turtle. But if they did so and offered opinions of him that were demonstrably untrue, perhaps you can show that. but i doubt it. againk, the issue is not the approval or lack of it for m. Liu, it is lying and misrepresenatation with the intent of smearing m. Obama.

geo.

geo.

 

[TurtleDude]

an opinion that MIGHT have validity, Turtle. But if they did so and offered opinions of him that were demonstrably untrue, perhaps you can show that. but i doubt it. againk, the issue is not the approval or lack of it for m. Liu, it is lying and misrepresenatation with the intent of smearing m. Obama.

geo.

geo.

I call it payback. I would hope it happens more. what the dems did to Estrada and my friend peter Keisler was complete BS

 

[Geo Patric]

I call it payback. I would hope it happens more. what the dems did to Estrada and my friend peter Keisler was complete BS

call it whatever you like (as you fail to demonstrate that your claim was true). what it IS is lying in an attempt to smear an opponent and play on the ignorance of their electorate. but then, considering the profession you claim, perhaps you really do not see that as a problem

geo.

 

[TurtleDude]

call it whatever you like (as you fail to demonstrate that your claim was true). what it IS is lying in an attempt to smear an opponent and play on the ignorance of their electorate. but then, considering the profession you claim, perhaps you really do not see that as a problem

geo.

so you justify what happened to the far more qualified Estrada and you attack me personally because you cannot argue rationally

 

[Geo Patric]

so you justify what happened to the far more qualified Estrada and you attack me personally because you cannot argue rationally

i did not attach you personally or otherwise. i made the implication that the truth is not the prime objective of lawyers. it isn't. and i implied that because that is true, you may not see truthfulness as the valuable attribute in a politician that I do. i note that you do not deny that.

and my arguments have been wholly rational and supported with good evidence. you have offered none. you make insulting claims but refuse to even PRETEND to support them.

geo.

 

[TurtleDude]

what do you do for a living? any competitive profession is going to have what you claim is a goal other than complete truth. A salesman is always going to argue his product or service is superior or a better value

 

[Geo Patric]

what do you do for a living? any competitive profession is going to have what you claim is a goal other than complete truth. A salesman is always going to argue his product or service is superior or a better value

I am a tutor..

geo.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am a tutor..

geo.

Interesting-I taught Labor law and constitutional law on an adjunct basis.

what do you tutor

 

[Geo Patric]

nothing so grand as that.... in a middle school i help those who are behind in their assignments in any subject. these are usually bright but not terribly enthused students. i try to raise a little enthusiasm when possible... just get the damned work done otherwise.

and i tutor English and writing to community college students - basic grammar and usage, how to write an essay, critical reading skills (especially poetry) and like that.

but, yeah, i took a shot at the lawyer thing - but only because it is essentially true, the adversarial (i could not come up with that word to save my bacon yesterday... getting old sucks) nature of courtroom lawyering is NOT a pursuit of truth per se, but nevertheless i think IS the best way to get at it. and, importantly, it is not done at the deliberate expense of the truth, or at least is not supposed to be. it is not foolproof, but still best. just as 'partisanship' in politics. opposing ideas pushing hard for success and the best of the true things are likely to fall out - but NOT when the truth itself is considered expendable.

partisan passion should not exclude the truth. we cannot expect the truth to fall our of a tangle of falsehoods.

geo.