Believe it or not, I had a cordial dinner once with Goodwin Liu, years and years ago in Washington, D.C. As far as I could tell, his memory back then was in good working order. But now that the radical left-wing law professor has been nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Liu seems to be suffering from a curious case of selective amnesia.
GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, blows the whistle on the 117 “extraordinary” omissions from Liu’s required committee questionnaire. (Funny how “forgetful” Obama’s greatest legal minds seem to be.) Liu’s hearing is currently scheduled for April 16. Says Sessions: “At best, this nominee’s extraordinary disregard for the Committee’s constitutional role demonstrates incompetence; at worst, it creates the impression that he knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the Committee. Professor Liu’s unwillingness to take seriously his obligation to complete these basic forms is potentially disqualifying and has placed his nomination in jeopardy.” Big hat tips to Ed Whelan and Verum Serum for unearthing many of these omissions.
Read the full letter here. An excerpt:
A text of the letter follows:
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Leahy:
We write regarding the voluminous supplement to Professor Goodwin Liu’s Questionnaire that we received from the Justice Department today. The supplement lists numerous additional items that Professor Liu omitted from the Questionnaire he submitted to the Committee on February 24, 2010. These glaring omissions were provided only after Committee staff continued to locate other additional items not disclosed by the nominee. At best, this nominee’s extraordinary disregard for the Committee’s constitutional role demonstrates incompetence; at worst, it creates the impression that he knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the Committee. Professor Liu’s unwillingness to take seriously his obligation to complete these basic forms is potentially disqualifying and has placed his nomination in jeopardy.
In the weeks since we received Professor Liu’s original Questionnaire, Committee staff has repeatedly discovered missing items, including: (1) Professor Liu’s commencement speech to UC Berkeley Law; (2) his participation in a panel entitled “What the 2008 Election Will Mean for the Supreme Court”; (3) his participation in a presentation entitled “The Fate of Affirmative Action from the O’Connor Court to the Roberts Court”; (4) his participation in an event co-sponsored by La Raza and the Center for Social Justice at Berkeley entitled “Mendez v. Westminster: 1946—A California Look at Brown v. Board of Education”; and (5) his participation in a conference on school funding. In addition, on March 31, it was reported that Professor Liu failed to include his participation in a panel entitled “The Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education” at the American Constitution Society’s (ACS) 2004 national convention. At the time of his participation, Professor Liu was a member of ACS’ board, his academic work focused heavily on Brown, and the panel discussion marked the 50th anniversary of Brown. Moreover, a transcript of the event can be found through an internet search. Nevertheless, Professor Liu failed to identify his participation in and/or provide a transcript of this panel discussion in his Questionnaire.
These are not minor omissions. A cursory glance at the titles of the events that Professor Liu has omitted from his Questionnaire shows that his participation in and comments during each are crucial to this Committee’s review of his nomination. Not only will the Committee require more time to review these new items, but, as we are sure you will agree, the Committee must conduct further research to confirm that there are no other missing items…
Update: Liu apologizes for “indavertent” omission after omission after omission.