Radical law professor Goodwin Liu was approved to sit on the federal appeals court for the Ninth Circuit in a party-line, 12-to-7 vote, by the Senate Judiciary Committee. His nomination now heads to the full Senate, which will confirm him unless there is a successful filibuster by Republicans.
Liu, a left-wing ideologue, is now poised to sit on the nation’s largest federal appeals court, the Ninth Circuit. Many Ninth Circuit rulings are decided by narrow majorities, like the recent 6-to-5 ruling against Wal-Mart in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit.
Liu has been suggested by left-wing racial lobbies as a possible Supreme Court nominee, because he believes that racial preferences are not merely permitted by the Constitution (as liberal justices argued in the Bakke case), but required by it. Liu believes that race-based busing should be required not merely within school districts, but across school district lines to create what are effectively region-wide racial quotas, a radical claim rejected by the Supreme Court long ago (the Supreme Court rejects busing across district lines even in desegregation cases). (The slippery Liu claims to oppose racial quotas, but he supports mandating fixed racial percentages and ratios, which is exactly what racial quotas are, under a dictionary definition of “quota.”) Racial quotas are often implemented at the urging of left-wing academics who harbor divisive and offensive racial stereotypes, such as “diversity” trainers who claim that whites are coldly “impersonal” and “intellectual” and thus need to be racially balanced with minorities who are “emotional” and “personal.”
Liu is hostile to “’free enterprise, private ownership of property, and limited government.’ According to Liu, these are ‘code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections.'”
Liu also believes in “a constitutional right to welfare.” Liu is also a big user of politically-correct psychobabble designed to hide judicial activism, writing that a judge is supposed to be a “culturally situated interpreter of social meaning” rather than an impartial umpire who interprets the law in accord with its plain meaning or its framers’ intent.
Bar association standards say lawyers are supposed to have practiced law for at least 12 years before being nominated to a judgeship, and should also have “substantial courtroom and trial experience.” Liu has no trial experience, and had not even been out of law school for 12 years when he was nominated, meaning he was by definition unqualified under ABA standards. But a liberal ABA committee, showing ideological bias, quickly rubberstamped his nomination anyway, ignoring his lack of the required qualifications, since the committee members shared his extreme political views.
The Ninth Circuit, to which Liu was nominated, already contained a lot of leftist judges. The Wall Street Journal criticized a recent 6-to-5 ruling by the Ninth Circuit allowing six employees to bring a multibillion dollar class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in the name of 1.5 million other Wal-Mart employees they had little in common with. As the dissenting opinion, written by Judge Sandra Ikuta, noted, the lawsuit was based on junk science that violated the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision, and let a few employees whose situation was anything but typical sue in the name of countless employees they shared nothing with but gender. The plaintiffs’ lawyers sought at least $450 billion! The intellectually dishonest ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart allowed just six employees to bring a national class-action even though Wal-Mart’s hiring and promotions are decentralized and not done on a company-wide basis, and Federal Rules of Procedure say that national class-actions are supposed to challenge a company-wide practice. The Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling against Wal-Mart was likewise an abuse of basic legal principles.
Although the lawsuit will affect employees and managers across the country (and probably reduce the value of your retirement plan, since the mutual funds in your 401(k) probably own Wal-Mart stock), a verdict will be rendered solely by a left-leaning jury drawn from the San Francisco Bay Area, since the plaintiffs sued Wal-Mart in one of the most anti-employer judicial districts in America, the Northern District of California.
In the ruling against Wal-Mart, the Ninth Circuit was split along ideological lines, with only hard-core liberal judges in the majority, and a dissent joined in by all the moderate and conservative judges (as well as a mainstream liberal Democrat Barry Silverman).