Litigation

Inside the Liu Hearing

By Charlie Hall

A Gavel Grab post on Friday gave news accounts of a confirmation hearing of Goodwin Liu, a University of Califoria law professor who has been nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Caitlin Russi, a federal assistant for Justice at Stake who provided a running Twitter update of the hearing, wrote this additional account:

Friday?s nomination hearing of Ninth Circuit nominee Professor Goodwin Liu was a display of the partisanship that has been the hallmark of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate over judicial nomination in recent administrations.

While most in the room complimented Liu on his intelligence and record in academia, the committee was split down party lines in their regard for Professor Liu?s ability to be an effective and impartial judge.

Democrats found Liu?s academic experience adequate preparation for the role for which he is nominated, while Republicans were unimpressed by his lack of trial experience. Liu was questioned several times about the supplements to his questionnaire; he was berated by Republican senators, accused of not taking the care to include all necessary materials. Democratic senators were quick to point out Bush appointees who submitted similar supplements (for example, Chief Justice Roberts, who left out seventy-five percent of his speeches and remarks in his initial questionnaire submission) and were quickly confirmed with no comments from Republicans.

One particularly tense moment came when Senator Kyl accused Professor Liu of having an ?agenda,? that Liu wanted to use the position of appellate judge to change legislative programs, specifically welfare. Additionally, the senator noted the politics of Professor Liu as made evident by his scholarly writings and remarks, calling Liu ?pretty liberal.? Senator Kyl?s overt accusation was characteristic of the Republicans? assertions of Liu?s ability to be an impartial juror. Liu repeatedly noted the difference between academic and judicial reasoning, stating he would defer to precedent, but that was largely ignored by Republicans.

Liu was questioned for over three hours and managed to stay calm and collected throughout his hearing. Even following the most heated of comments, Professor Liu remained focused, clarifying excerpts from submissions and affirming his judicial philosophy that ?personal beliefs never have a role in judging.?

To see other posts on federal judicial nominations, click here. Or see Justice at Stake’s Federal Court Issues page.

Full post as published by The Gavel on April 18, 2010 (boomark / email).