Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Obama Pushing Another Radical Anti-gunner to the Federal Bench

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    377

    Post imported post

    FROMGOA:





    Obama Pushing Another Radical Anti-gunner to the Federal Bench




    Friday, March 29, 2010




    "Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views... using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they’re doing." -- Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (3/4/10)
    Imagine a judicial candidate that is so far to the left that even Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, is hesitant to push him forward.

    Imagine a liberal law professor that not only fails to meet the ABA's basic requirements for a federal judge, but is so green behind the ears that it appears the only reason he is being nominated to the federal courts is because he served as part of President Obama's transition team.

    If you can imagine such a leftist candidate, then you would be thinking of Goodwin Liu, the President's recent nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    Liu is the Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the ultra-left UC Berkeley School of Law. Only 39 years old, he comes nowhere near fulfilling the ABA's standards for a judge.

    But what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in radical liberalism. In a recent book that he co-authored, Liu says that, "Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change... as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation."

    Got it? Like many radical progressives, Liu believes that our rights are constantly evolving. The Second Amendment might have been necessary in the 1700s, he believes, but now those rights are no longer necessary.

    In Liu's world, there would be no gun rights

    Noted author David Kopel cites a law journal article of Liu's where he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional -- the Brady Law's unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

    Liu said that Supreme Court cases like these did "damage" to civil rights and "upset settled understandings of congressional power." What?! Striking down gun control laws does damage to civil rights? Well, let's be clear: the Court did upset someone's "settled" understanding of things, but it was the LIBERAL'S misunderstanding of the Constitution.

    By the way, Liu co-authored the 2002 law journal article with then-Senator Hillary Clinton... which should tell us all we need to know about Liu's liberal, anti-gun views!

    Rights evolve over time?

    The bottom line is that Liu would not be a stickler for the Constitution if he were to sit on the appellate court.

    "It becomes pretty clear why 'originalism' and 'strict construction' don't make a lot of sense," Liu said in an interview promoting his book. "The Framers deliberately chose... broad words so they would be adaptable to new challenges over time."

    No wonder that the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), spoke out so forcefully against the nomination of Goodwin Liu:


    I am very disappointed by President Obama's nomination of Professor Goodwin Liu to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit....
    Instead of nominating an individual who has demonstrated an impartial commitment to following the Constitution and the rule of law, President Obama has selected someone far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence. Professor Liu believes that judges should look to "evolving norms and social understandings" in interpreting the Constitution, he has a history of advocating for racial preferences, and he served on the Board of the directors of the ACLU.
    ACTION: Please urge your two Senators to oppose Obama's appointment of Goodwin Liu, the latest anti-gun liberal to be picked for the federal courts. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.

    ----- Pre-written letter -----

    Dear Senator:

    I oppose the nomination of Goodwin Liu, the President's recent nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    Liu is an anti-gun, radical leftist who doesn't even meet the ABA’s basic requirements for a federal judge, as he has neither practiced law for 12 years, nor has he any experience as a trial lawyer.

    Liu believes that our rights are constantly evolving... which is why I'm very concerned about his Second Amendment views. He co-authored a law journal article in 2002 with then-Senator Hillary Clinton, wherein he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional -- the Brady Law's unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

    Leftists like Liu think our gun rights might have been necessary in the 1700s, but are no longer necessary today. I agree with Senator Jeff Sessions' critique of Liu, as the latter mistakenly thinks that judges should look to "evolving norms and social understandings" in interpreting the Constitution.

    I vehemently oppose this view and hope you will vote against any nominee who doesn't stand strong on the Bill of Rights.

    Please oppose Goodwin Liu.

    Sincerely,

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    You can't say it any more convincing than this. If the California DAs don't want this guy...

    TFred


    Majority of D.A.s in [California] oppose Obama nominee
    Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
    Tuesday, March 30, 2010

    Forty-two of California's 58 county district attorneys are opposing President Obama's nomination of Goodwin Liu to the federal appeals court in San Francisco, saying they believe the UC Berkeley law professor is hostile to the death penalty.

    In a letter to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the prosecutors attacked a paper Liu coauthored in 2005 that criticized death penalty decisions by Samuel Alito, then President George W. Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court.

    The paper did not state its authors' views of the death penalty, but said Alito's opinions "show a disturbing tendency to tolerate serious errors in capital proceedings." The district attorneys said Liu's critique shows he would vote as a judge to overturn nearly every death sentence.

    The document "demonstrates beyond serious question that his views on criminal law, capital punishment and the role of the federal courts in second-guessing state decisions are fully aligned" with an appeals court that is "far out of the judicial mainstream," the prosecutors said.

    They included two Bay Area district attorneys, Ed Berberian of Marin County and David Paulson of Solano County.

    In response, the White House released a letter from the state's prison guards union, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, saying Liu would "further the cause of justice and follow the law and Constitution for all parties ... including crime victims and peace officers."

    The dueling messages continued a partisan battle for public opinion over Liu's nomination to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The 39-year-old professor has drawn rave reviews from academic colleagues and the American Bar Association. But conservatives have branded him a liberal activist and criticized his support for affirmative action, same-sex marriage and the view that constitutional rights evolve over time.

    The Senate Judiciary Committee postponed a confirmation hearing last week because of Republican objections and is scheduled to take up the nomination April 16.

    Liu's 2005 critique of the death penalty opinions that Alito authored as a federal appeals court judge in Philadelphia included a case in which a prosecutor had removed all three black prospective jurors from a panel that proceeded to condemn a black defendant to death. The prosecution had also removed all African Americans from juries in three other trials in the county that year.

    Alito dissented from a ruling overturning the death sentence and said the statistics did not prove the prosecution had been racially biased in picking juries. Liu said Alito's reasoning was later rejected by the Supreme Court and illustrated his willingness to excuse constitutional flaws in death penalty cases.

    That demonstrates Liu's bias, said the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a conservative organization. The foundation said Liu had distorted the Supreme Court ruling in order to "indict and convict prosecutors of racism on flimsy evidence."

    E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.


  3. #3
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Well, all I got to say about this is that watching these Ubamanistas so closely is really sharpening up my vision - which has a side benefit of improving my range scores.

    Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys; and giving money and power to DemonRatz is like giving matches and gasoline to four-year-olds. Up side is, they are starting to self-immolate.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    XD Owner wrote:
    FROMGOA:



    "Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views... using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they’re doing." -- Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (3/4/10)

    (we can get an ideologue from a Moon front to charicature his views)


    Liu is the Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the ultra-left UC Berkeley School of Law.


    (One of the nation's best law schools, which also hosts controversial conservatives from Bush's justice department on its faculty)


    Got it? Like many radical progressives, Liu believes that our rights are constantly evolving.

    (Just like the majority of Supreme Court Justices since the 1940s)

    The Second Amendment might have been necessary in the 1700s, he believes, but now those rights are no longer necessary.

    In Liu's world, there would be no gun rights

    (Based on nothing but hot air)

    Noted author David Kopel cites a law journal article of Liu's where he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional -- the Brady Law's unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

    Liu said that Supreme Court cases like these did "damage" to civil rights and "upset settled understandings of congressional power." What?! Striking down gun control laws does damage to civil rights? Well, let's be clear: the Court did upset someone's "settled" understanding of things, but it was the LIBERAL'S misunderstanding of the Constitution.


    (Neither case based on the Second Amendment: the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Commerce Clause did upset settled understandings of Congressional power, and, in fact,brought into question statutes that use the Commerce Clause power to enforce civil rights)


    By the way, Liu co-authored the 2002 law journal article with then-Senator Hillary Clinton... which should tell us all we need to know about Liu's liberal, anti-gun views!


    (Tells us all we need to know about GOA's tendency to judge people based on their associations with -- gasp -- Democratic Secretarys of State)

    he has a history of advocating for racial preferences

    (As does every branch of government, including the Courts)

    and he served on the Board of the directors of the ACLU.

    (Well, slap me up, and call me a communist)

  5. #5
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    XD Owner wrote:
    FROMGOA:




    "Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views... using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they’re doing." -- Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (3/4/10)

    (we can get an ideologue from a Moon front to charicature his views)

    guilt by association, eh? let the right do it to the left, it's a sin but.......


    Liu is the Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the ultra-left UC Berkeley School of Law.


    (One of the nation's best law schools, which also hosts controversial conservatives from Bush's justice department on its faculty)
    You can study hard for four years and go to grad school for four years and still be a complete idiot.

    Got it? Like many radical progressives, Liu believes that our rights are constantly evolving.

    (Just like the majority of Supreme Court Justices since the 1940s)
    follow the lemmings wherever they go...
    The Second Amendment might have been necessary in the 1700s, he believes, but now those rights are no longer necessary.

    In Liu's world, there would be no gun rights

    (Based on nothing but hot air)
    based on what Liu has said.
    Noted author David Kopel cites a law journal article of Liu's where he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional -- the Brady Law's unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

    Liu said that Supreme Court cases like these did "damage" to civil rights and "upset settled understandings of congressional power." What?! Striking down gun control laws does damage to civil rights? Well, let's be clear: the Court did upset someone's "settled" understanding of things, but it was the LIBERAL'S misunderstanding of the Constitution.


    (Neither case based on the Second Amendment: the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Commerce Clause did upset settled understandings of Congressional power, and, in fact,brought into question statutes that use the Commerce Clause power to enforce civil rights)

    so it's okay to abuse and violate the Connstitution if the cause is sufficiently noble??
    By the way, Liu co-authored the 2002 law journal article with then-Senator Hillary Clinton... which should tell us all we need to know about Liu's liberal, anti-gun views!


    (Tells us all we need to know about GOA's tendency to judge people based on their associations with -- gasp -- Democratic Secretarys of State)
    See your comment about "Moon fronts". Now you accuse the OP of the same sin you committed. Hypocrisy? Yup.
    he has a history of advocating for racial preferences

    (As does every branch of government, including the Courts)
    which does not make it right.
    and he served on the Board of the directors of the ACLU.

    (Well, slap me up, and call me a communist)
    don't tempt me, Donk.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    XD Owner wrote:
    FROMGOA:





    "Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views... using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they’re doing." -- Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (3/4/10)

    (we can get an ideologue from a Moon front to charicature his views)

    guilt by association, eh? let the right do it to the left, it's a sin but.......


    You know, you areright about the "guilt by association" thing. Moon has funded good stuff as well as crapola, and this Center seems more in line with the good stuff. But even so, the Whelan jab about what judges do is more than a bit thick.
    . . .


    The Second Amendment might have been necessary in the 1700s, he believes, but now those rights are no longer necessary.

    In Liu's world, there would be no gun rights

    (Based on nothing but hot air)
    based on what Liu has said.


    Well, what hasLiu said on the 2A? GOA certainly doesn't tell us: they give us nothing but generalities. GOAwould be all over it if Liu said anything that really supports their specious suppositions.


  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    In fact, I may also be wrong about the Center's support: a different "Ethics" think tank gets its funding from Moon. The Center gets its funding from neo-conservative leaning foundations. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php..._Policy_Center

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Donkey: No insult intended, just trying to get insight.

    Do you OC?

    Do you advocate OC?

    Do you post about OC?

    I am just being curious. Feel free to ignore these requests.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Generally, have OCed onlyin specific circumstances: working in gun stores,carrying weapons for display in and outgun shows, etc.

    I don't do it much at all.
    Last edited by The Donkey; 12-13-2010 at 02:50 PM. Reason: Support National Mule Appreciation Day!

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Thanks.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    Yes to all of the above.

    Generally, have OCed onlyin specific circumstances: working in gun stores,carrying weapons for display in and outgun shows, etc.

    I don't do it every day, but support the rights of those who choose to.

    Main ways of support: blogging and assisting with court briefs
    And exactly how does helping Sotomayor squeeze into her underpants help the OC movement?

    (Hilk, hilk, hilk )

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post


  13. #13
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    Yes to all of the above.

    Generally, have OCed onlyin specific circumstances: working in gun stores,carrying weapons for display in and outgun shows, etc.

    I don't do it every day, but support the rights of those who choose to.

    Main ways of support: blogging and assisting with court briefs
    And exactly how does helping Sotomayor squeeze into her underpants help the OC movement?

    (Hilk, hilk, hilk )
    But, but,,she's a "wise latina" and can make better decisions based on her life experiences than a older white male" :what:sheesh
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  14. #14
    Regular Member Plankton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Just north of the Sheeple's Republik of Madistan
    Posts
    414

    Post imported post

    Emails sent to both Wisconsin senators!
    Liberty or death. We're sorry, there are no other options available at this time..........
    "Safety is the new Liberty, and recklessness is the new Freedom, and alcoholism is the new Doug Huffman."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •