Senate GOP Marks a First - Blocking an Obama Judicial Nominee

[Renae]

Democrats needed 60 votes to move the nomination forward to final passage. Senate Republicans on Thursday toppled the nomination, 52-43, of controversial University of California-Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu, nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a first in President Barack Obama's presidency

In the end, only one Republican voted for the nominee, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Nebraska's Ben Nelson was the lone Democrat to oppose Liu. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, chose to vote "present," a sign of his long-time opposition to judicial nominee filibusters. Democrats needed 60 votes to move the nomination to final passage.

GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said the nominee's writings "reveal a left-wing ideologue who views the role of a judge not as that of an impartial arbiter, but as someone who views the bench as a position of power." And though the Kentucky senator said he has "nothing against (Liu) personally, "Earning a lifetime appointment isn't a right, nor is it a popularity contest."

But Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., decried the filibuster, arguing that right-wing judicial nominees had received an up or down vote when Republicans were in power. "I listened to the speeches....I sometimes wonder who everyone's talking about," Leahy said. "No question, his intellect and qualifications, he should be treated with respect and admiration, not maligned."

Leahy also cited Liu's Taiwanese immigrant heritage as a reason for confirmation, noting, "There are no Asian-Pacific Americans on the bench."



Read more: Senate GOP Marks a First - Blocking an Obama Judicial Nominee - FoxNews.com

Now, I'm generally against filibustering any judicial nominee, this however was a rare case of one far out there political hack with no business being nominated. Also, what's up with racist Leahy eh? Who cares what his skin color is? Is he qualified and can he do the job? Nope, that didn't matter, his skin color did. FOR SHAME SENATOR!

 

[liblady]

Now, I'm generally against filibustering any judicial nominee, this however was a rare case of one far out there political hack with no business being nominated. Also, what's up with racist Leahy eh? Who cares what his skin color is? Is he qualified and can he do the job? Nope, that didn't matter, his skin color did. FOR SHAME SENATOR!

this is indeed a shame. he is certainly qualified. too bad he doesn't like alito.

 

[Renae]

this is indeed a shame. he is certainly qualified. too bad he doesn't like alito.

He wasn't qualified at all, have your read the mans stance on how judges should behave?

Seriously Liblady, this guy was a nutjob, through and through.

 

[Renae]

For a preview of the pitfalls facing President Obama if he nominates a liberal to succeed retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, yesterday's hearing for Goodwin Liu is instructive. As a nominee to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the 39-year-old Berkeley law school professor is a prototype for those who believe the Constitution should be read to reflect what he has called the "evolving norms and social understandings of our country."

If Mr. Liu's judicial philosophy wouldn't be familiar to the Framers, it is de rigueur in the elite colleges and law schools from which he hails. Speaking of the nomination of now Chief Justice John Roberts, Mr. Liu opined that words like "'free enterprise,' 'private ownership of property,' and 'limited government'" are "code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections."

And this tib bit:

Mr. Obama once suggested that he would seek judicial nominees who used empathy in judging the cases that came before their courts, a sentiment Mr. Liu echoed yesterday. "Law affects people's lives. It's not just a bunch of words on paper" or cases in a book, he said. And while a judge should not be biased, he should decide cases based on an "appreciation of what's at stake in a particular case."

Of course that's right, but the real test of a judge is to decide cases based on the law, not on political ideology or human sympathies. Professor Liu sounds like a man with a political legal agenda.

Berkeley's Judge Goodwin Liu - WSJ.com

The guy was a political hack, and no business even being thought of for the bench.

 

[Kandahar]

Now, I'm generally against filibustering any judicial nominee, this however was a rare case of one far out there political hack with no business being nominated.

Ehh, that's what the out-party says about EVERY judicial nominee they don't like and want to filibuster. I'm not a big fan of filibusters in general...judicial or otherwise. The purpose of a filibuster was supposed to be to allow all senators to present their viewpoint, rather than to obstruct the business of the Senate. Our government would function a lot better if filibusters were removed entirely and/or if there was a certain time limit attached to them.

 

[Renae]

Ehh, that's what the out-party says about EVERY judicial nominee they don't like and want to filibuster. I'm not a big fan of filibusters in general...judicial or otherwise. The purpose of a filibuster was supposed to be to allow all senators to present their viewpoint, rather than to obstruct the business of the Senate. Our government would function a lot better if filibusters were removed entirely and/or if there was a certain time limit attached to them.

They do, and seeing as this is the first time in Obama's administration, and considering this Liu gentleman is a political hack weenie, I approve.

 

[Badmutha]

God Bless America.........

....no more liberal activist judges.
.
.
.

 

[Redbeard]

Finally showing some backbone. The 9th circuit is already the most liberal appeals court.

 

[disneydude]

So much for the "up or down" vote rhetoric of the GOP. Proving themselves the hypocrites that they are.

 

[cpwill]

So much for the "up or down" vote rhetoric of the GOP. Proving themselves the hypocrites that they are.

:shrug: Democrats held a fillibuster-proof majority of the Senate. If they really didn't like fillibustering Republican nominees, they would have gotten rid of the rule then.

 

[Kandahar]

I'm not sure exactly how the parliamentary rules of the Senate work, so I'm not sure if this would be feasible. But maybe both parties could agree to phase out the filibuster at some point in the distant future. For example, maybe they could agree that at the start of the congressional session in 2017, it would be eliminated. That's far enough into the future that neither party would have any idea who would initially benefit from it, and could therefore vote to eliminate the filibuster. It would eliminate a destructive force on our legislative body, without anyone needing to vote to maintain the filibuster to protect their short-term political interests.

 

[TurtleDude]

He wasn't qualified at all, have your read the mans stance on how judges should behave?

Seriously Liblady, this guy was a nutjob, through and through.

when the dems blocked Estrada-who was recommended by all four living former dem solicitor generals mainly because the dems didn't want Bush to gain Latino Support by grooming a brilliant Hispanic for the supreme court, its time for some serious payback

 

[TurtleDude]

So much for the "up or down" vote rhetoric of the GOP. Proving themselves the hypocrites that they are.

Estrada was blocked on racist grounds

Peter Keisler was blocked as well

those two clerked for AJ Kennedy and are considered among the brightest legal minds in the country. Keisler won widespread acclaim for being the AAG Civil division under Bush and then the acting AG after Gonzo left.

His integrity is beyond reproach and is a brilliant lawyer. Estrada came to the US hardly speaking any English at 17 and graduated at the top of his class (compare that to Obama) at Columbia and then was a magna at Harvard Law.

 

[disneydude]

Estrada was blocked on racist grounds

Peter Keisler was blocked as well

those two clerked for AJ Kennedy and are considered among the brightest legal minds in the country. Keisler won widespread acclaim for being the AAG Civil division under Bush and then the acting AG after Gonzo left.

His integrity is beyond reproach and is a brilliant lawyer. Estrada came to the US hardly speaking any English at 17 and graduated at the top of his class (compare that to Obama) at Columbia and then was a magna at Harvard Law.

and........

The point is.....Republicans cried loud and hard for "an up and down vote".....but when the tables are turned...they prove they are nothing but a bunch of empty rhetoric hypocrites.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Anyone familiar with what is considered the standard by the American Bar Association for a Federal Judge?

Im talking experience either as a trial lawyer or on the bench? Has he been practicing law in the field long enough to make qualified judgements and motion rulings?

Does Liu meet that expectaction? Regardless of his political outlook on the bench or his academic qualifications.

Ill give you a hint...he hasnt been out of law school long enough to meet that standard and he hasnt been a trial lawyer---at all.

What makes him qualified again?

 

[Renae]

and........

The point is.....Republicans cried loud and hard for "an up and down vote".....but when the tables are turned...they prove they are nothing but a bunch of empty rhetoric hypocrites.

SPARE us the talking points would you DD? Seriously.

35 TIMES the Dem's Filibustered Bush Nominee's between 2001-2005. 35 TIMES. The GOP, 2.5 YEARS into Obama's term, and they pulled the trigger on one radical nominee. Come back when you're ready to discuss the situation on some rationale basis.

 

[disneydude]

SPARE us the talking points would you DD? Seriously.

35 TIMES the Dem's Filibustered Bush Nominee's between 2001-2005. 35 TIMES. The GOP, 2.5 YEARS into Obama's term, and they pulled the trigger on one radical nominee. Come back when you're ready to discuss the situation on some rationale basis.

Did I say that I disagree? But the Dems weren't the ones saying "UP or Down"...."UP or Down"..... the GOP once again shows that they truly are the party of hypocracy.
They love to talk the game...but almost never live it (e.g...."Family values")

 

[Renae]

Did I say that I disagree? But the Dems weren't the ones saying "UP or Down"...."UP or Down"..... the GOP once again shows that they truly are the party of hypocracy.
They love to talk the game...but almost never live it (e.g...."Family values")

Okay, let's get serious here. I'm going to take this moment to thoroughly trash you.

The GOP sat and watched as 35 nomniee's were denied even an up and down vote. At first they were frustrated, then they were angered, and finally it was exasperation as the Democrat Party decided that the Senate now required 60 votes to get even a single Judge through.

35 TIMES. Are you going to tell everyone here, on this board and the world that President Bush nominated 35 people for the courts that rose to the level of being being so unacceptable and unqualified that they deserved to be filibustered?

So now, 2.5 years and many nominee's later... the GOP finally pulls the trigger on a single nominee and you have the audacity to cry "Hypocrisy"? I'd say that shows which party is responsible, and understand their role, the role of the Senate in this process and chose to make a stand only when it was a last resort.

Not the first reaction to any nominee.

The GOP didn't play tit for tat.

Democratic Underground That's a place you should try your line out at it, it might carry water there.

 

[disneydude]

Okay, let's get serious here. I'm going to take this moment to thoroughly trash you.

The GOP sat and watched as 35 nomniee's were denied even an up and down vote. At first they were frustrated, then they were angered, and finally it was exasperation as the Democrat Party decided that the Senate now required 60 votes to get even a single Judge through.

35 TIMES. Are you going to tell everyone here, on this board and the world that President Bush nominated 35 people for the courts that rose to the level of being being so unacceptable and unqualified that they deserved to be filibustered?

So now, 2.5 years and many nominee's later... the GOP finally pulls the trigger on a single nominee and you have the audacity to cry "Hypocrisy"? I'd say that shows which party is responsible, and understand their role, the role of the Senate in this process and chose to make a stand only when it was a last resort.

Not the first reaction to any nominee.

The GOP didn't play tit for tat.

Democratic Underground That's a place you should try your line out at it, it might carry water there.

Sorry Vich....but your post failed to address the hypocracy that the GOP represents.

 

[Renae]

Sorry Vich....but your post failed to address the hypocracy that the GOP represents.

Translation: I have nothing to counter this with but more blind hyper-partisanship. My party can filibuster nominee's to the end of time, but if the GOP Dare do it to a single one, over half way through a Dem President's term I shall cry and whine and call the GOP names because I'm just not serious about politics or debate. Just parroting DNC talking points like a good boy.


Carry on DD, I gave you a chance to discuss the issue with some semblance of credibility, but as usual, you have nothing but empty hyper-partisan empty hand wringing and predictable rhetoric.

 

[disneydude]

Translation: I have nothing to counter this with but more blind hyper-partisanship. My party can filibuster nominee's to the end of time, but if the GOP Dare do it to a single one, over half way through a Dem President's term I shall cry and whine and call the GOP names because I'm just not serious about politics or debate. Just parroting DNC talking points like a good boy.


Carry on DD, I gave you a chance to discuss the issue with some semblance of credibility, but as usual, you have nothing but empty hyper-partisan empty hand wringing and predictable rhetoric.

No Vich...it is you who is completely missing the point. I am not a fan of filibusters no matter which party is engaging in the tactic. However....the Democrats have made no issue of using the filibuster....the Republicans decried the Dems and coined the term "up or down" vote....they harked on it and harked on it...the same way they harked and harked on family values....and just like the hypocracy that the GOP displays time and time again in the family values arena...they are now displaying here in clear view.

 

[Renae]

No Vich...it is you who is completely missing the point. I am not a fan of filibusters no matter which party is engaging in the tactic. However....the Democrats have made no issue of using the filibuster....the Republicans decried the Dems and coined the term "up or down" vote....they harked on it and harked on it...the same way they harked and harked on family values....and just like the hypocracy that the GOP displays time and time again in the family values arena...they are now displaying here in clear view.

So, after 35 Filibusters, and getting tired of the BS, the GOP now can never filibuster a nominee the right way (ya know, reserving such tactics for extremes) because they dared complain about the over use of the filibuster by the Dem's.

No, I understand your point, the GOP complained, doesn't matter the circumstance, or situation, about Dem's abusing the system, so if they dare use the same method, regardless of situation or context, you'll bray lie a good party hack the talking points given you in your dailykos email.

I shall now turn to National Review to mock you and the one from whom you "reached" your conclusion from:

The Left’s Hypocrisy—and Sloppiness—About Supposed Republican Hypocrisy on Filibusters
May 20, 2011 10:55 A.M.
By Ed Whelan
In what will no doubt be a long series of screeds from the Left, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick complains of Republican senators’ “extraordinary hypocrisy” in filibustering the controversial nomination of Goodwin Liu. Lithwick’s argument is replete with sloppy thinking and misinformation:

1. For starters, the two positions that are most difficult, indeed impossible, to reconcile in a principled manner are the positions that Lithwick and others on the Left have adopted: namely, (1) that it was perfectly fine for Senate Democrats to filibuster President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees, but (2) that it is objectionable for Senate Republicans to filibuster President Obama’s nomination of Liu.

2. The charge of hypocrisy against Senate Republicans is lazy and meritless, for the simple reason that Democratic resort to the filibuster against Bush nominees dramatically altered the terrain.

The Left

Quit reading slate.com, it makes you too easy to counter.

 

[disneydude]

So, after 35 Filibusters, and getting tired of the BS, the GOP now can never filibuster a nominee the right way (ya know, reserving such tactics for extremes) because they dared complain about the over use of the filibuster by the Dem's.

No, I understand your point, the GOP complained, doesn't matter the circumstance, or situation, about Dem's abusing the system, so if they dare use the same method, regardless of situation or context, you'll bray lie a good party hack the talking points given you in your dailykos email.

I shall now turn to National Review to mock you and the one from whom you "reached" your conclusion from:




The Left

Quit reading slate.com, it makes you too easy to counter.

Never heard of slate.com....but I checked it out. Not really my style...but thanks for the heads up anyway. As far as the rest of your post....if this were simply an anomaly in the GOP actions, I could understand how one might not view it as hypocritical. However....the GOP is notorious at the "Do as I say...not as I do politics".....

Some things never change.

 

[Whovian]

:shrug: Democrats held a fillibuster-proof majority of the Senate. If they really didn't like fillibustering Republican nominees, they would have gotten rid of the rule then.

they knew they'd need it someday, so they chose to keep it and take their chances.

 

[Renae]

Never heard of slate.com....but I checked it out. Not really my style...but thanks for the heads up anyway. As far as the rest of your post....if this were simply an anomaly in the GOP actions, I could understand how one might not view it as hypocritical. However....the GOP is notorious at the "Do as I say...not as I do politics".....

Some things never change.

2.5 years, how many Nominee's have been Filibustered by the GOP? 1.

Enough said.