GOP Smears Chinese-American Goodwin Liu With Communist Charge

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Judiciary
Posted on Thu May 19, 2011 at 10:53:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Joe McCarthy Lives:

Six years ago, Ninth Circuit judicial nominee Goodwin Liu published an op-ed in which he made the utterly banal point that a conservative interest group used the terms “free enterprise,”‘ “private ownership of property,” and “limited government” as “code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections.” In a speech on the Senate floor yesterday, however, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) somehow managed to interpret this op-ed as proof that Liu wants to turn America into “Communist-run China”:

GRASSLEY: Does [Liu] think we’re the communist-run China? That the government runs everything? [. . .]

Ironically, Liu's family immigrated from Taiwan:

Grassley’s suggestion that Goodwin Liu is the second-coming of Mao Tse-tung would be utterly shocking to Liu himself. As Liu explains, his own commitment to American law stems from his experience as the child of Taiwanese immigrants [. . .]

But "they" all have "slant eyes," don't they?

Speaking for me only

< Dominique Strauss -Kahn Resigns as IMF Chief | Pelosi: "We Have A Plan: It's Called Medicare" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

GOP Smears Chinese-American Goodwin Liu With Communist Charge | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I just read an article (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by CST on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:00:09 AM EST

I was gonna post in the open about Liu. He sounds like exactly who I want on the bench, although I doubt he'll make it there. The "gang of 14" - we will never ever filibuster - unless it's an actual DEMOCRAT is abandoning him.

His offense:

"Republicans and conservatives believe Liu expressed his true judicial philosophy in a radio interview after Obama's election. He said then that liberals "have the opportunity to actually get our ideas and the progressive vision of the Constitution and of law and policy into practice."

Liu had said Alito's vision was an America "where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy ... where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance ... where the FBI may install a camera where you sleep ... where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man, absent ... analysis showing discrimination.""

Italics mine. Heaven forbid we try to actual govern on our ideals. He has now... backtracked a bit on the Alito statement, since he is trying to get through the senate. It's probably my favorite part though.

Good catch, CST (none / 0) (#3)
by Zorba on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:13:06 AM EST

I agree.


do you see the problem? (none / 0) (#9)
by diogenes on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:54:29 AM EST

It would be fine for liberals to have used the presidency and control of both houses of Congress to advance their "ideas and progressive vision". That is what democracy is all about, after all, and that was what they were elected to do in 2008.
Whether advancing "liberal ideas and progressive visions" from a lifetime appointment on the judicial bench is reasonable is a different story.


Pres. Obama nominated Liu to Ninth (5.00 / 0) (#10)
by oculus on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:01:37 PM EST

Circuit Court of Appeals. He is currently a professor at Boalt Hall at Berkeley.


Unfortunately (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by CST on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:05:45 PM EST

It takes liberal ideas and progressive vision to accurately represent the ideals in the constitution since the conservatives appear to have no sense of what it means.

Whatever you think of Alito, Scalia, Roberts, et all - they certainly do not represent anything but an extreme conservative vision on a judicial bench. There is nothing remotely moderate or accurate in their interpretation of the constitution.

I do not think anything but "liberal ideas and progressive visions" is an accurate reading of the constitution. Because conservatives are just flat out wrong on the facts and truth.


Elections have consequences. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Anne on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:12:26 PM EST

Or so we are told when Republican presidents make judicial nominations.

There was no concern about it being reasonable then, when Republican presidents were making their mark, so your concern about it now that a Democrat is president is both hypocritical and laughable.


Yes, elections have (none / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:53:25 PM EST

consequences. The last one was in November 2010.


The entire government does not (none / 0) (#32)
by cal1942 on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:25:23 PM EST

turn around every two years.

It's in the Constitution, the fundamental law of the land.

An interesting document. You should read it some time.


Naw.... You folks tell me that it changes (none / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 19, 2011 at 08:44:02 PM EST

to fit the times so I don't bother...

;-)

My comment re 11/2010 was to note that the Demos lost the House and a chunk of Senate seats and that scared the stuff out of the Demos not in a 110% safe seat... that is... elections have consequences and the Constitution allows that.


Changes? (none / 0) (#40)
by cal1942 on Thu May 19, 2011 at 09:19:59 PM EST

No, not changes.

The authors new they could not predict the future (conservatives who say if it isn't in the Constitution it isn't allowed are dead wrong) and wrote it to have joints.


Change? Future? (none / 0) (#42)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 20, 2011 at 08:41:38 AM EST

We have something called "Amendments."


Yes, amendments (none / 0) (#43)
by cal1942 on Fri May 20, 2011 at 10:25:16 AM EST

what's your point?


: That the founders provided a way (none / 0) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:10:01 PM EST

for the Constitution to change.
Wasn't change your point?

oh lordy (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by sj on Thu May 19, 2011 at 01:25:30 PM EST

Whether advancing "liberal ideas and progressive visions" from a lifetime appointment on the judicial bench is reasonable is a different story.

Exactly how different is that "story" than the one where a radical right justice has a lifetime appointment?


It appears to me (none / 0) (#28)
by cal1942 on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:14:28 PM EST

that your principle problem is democracy itself.


"counterweight" (none / 0) (#41)
by diogenes on Thu May 19, 2011 at 10:12:26 PM EST

If you support a "counterweight" to assorted sleazy behavior by conservative judges than you support sleazy behavior, basically hoping that your side can outsleaze the other side.
The Democratic majority in the House from 2006-2010 was welcome to bring up any appropriate ethics complaints against sitting Supreme Court judges. I don't remember this happening, but I might have missed it since I don't follow the law journals.


So because Liu (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by Zorba on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:11:49 AM EST

(correctly, IMHO) said that those were code words for "an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections," that makes him a Communist? Well, sign me up, because that makes me a Communist, too. The ludicrous idea that a Chinese-American (of Taiwanese parentage, yet) wants to turn this country into Communist China is beyond ridiculous, not to mention insulting. And someone ought to tell Grassley, by the way, that environmental, workplace, and consumer protections in China are nothing any sane person would want to emulate, anyway.

It;s the "being Chinese" part (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:18:18 AM EST

that makes him a Communist.


: Oh, well, of course (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Zorba on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:26:34 AM EST

Anyone who is of Chinese background (or Latino, or, or, or.......) must be suspect. How stupid of me. :-(

: Yup - without that he would have (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by ruffian on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:12:11 PM EST

been a regular Berkeley radical in Grassley's parlance.
They just can't help going for the racial slur. It's how they roll.

When you identify (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:55:27 PM EST

yourself as an activist... Don't expect to get on the Appeals court without overcoming major opposition.


By your benchmark (5.00 / 0) (#33)
by cal1942 on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:30:56 PM EST

Thomas, Scalia, etc. should be impeached.


I actually agree with this (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 19, 2011 at 01:03:37 PM EST

I draw the line at the McCarthyism and the racism though.


Agree (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 19, 2011 at 03:11:20 PM EST

But the Left has been known to Bork...

Both sides do "it."


And besides, (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Zorba on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:54:40 PM EST

Bork's nomination wasn't held up by an interminable filibuster. It went to an actual Senate vote, and his nomination was defeated, 58-42. They're keeping Liu's nomination from even going to the floor for a vote.


Fake to you (2.00 / 1) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 19, 2011 at 08:47:13 PM EST

real to the Repubs.

BTW - I'll give you Thomas on a COI and take Pelosi on the same charge.

Like I said, they all do it.


Thomas (none / 0) (#44)
by cal1942 on Fri May 20, 2011 at 10:29:59 AM EST

is a sitting justice on the court. Supposed to be above it all, uninterested.

Nancy Pelosi is an elected official who runs on a partisan ballot.

Get the difference?


: Conflict of interest is conflict of interest (none / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 22, 2011 at 01:07:57 PM EST

Grassley (none / 0) (#29)
by cal1942 on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:16:34 PM EST

is an idiot just like every other moron Republican in both houses of Congress.


Well (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:37:14 AM EST

they know by now calling someone a "communist" is a sure way to get Obama to do what they want.

"Socialist" used to be sufficient. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by oculus on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:53:01 AM EST

: And to think (none / 0) (#34)
by cal1942 on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:32:20 PM EST

they throw a tantrum when the word fascist is used.

That's just embarrassing. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Anne on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:04:41 PM EST

One wonders what Grassley would have said if the nominee were a person of color or female...

And once again, we will see Republicans who railed about the evil of filibusters when Bush was doing the nominating, suddenly discovering that, hey, this "advise and consent" thing is a serious matter and it would be irresponsible not to be able to use the filibuster if necessary to carry out that duty.

Democrats never seem to be able to process the truth that the things Republicans most vociferously and passionately object to others doing are the very things they will pivot to doing themselves without skipping a beat.

This is just all so predictable it isn't even mildly amusing.

Not hard to imagine (none / 0) (#15)
by ruffian on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:15:51 PM EST

They always go back to the 60's archetypes. Black or female would have been an Angela Davis style Berkeley radical. Black male they might have invoked Bobby Seale.


"A wise Latina," although that kind of (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:26:41 PM EST

backfired.


: 'Cuz she called herself that and could (none / 0) (#36)
by ruffian on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:55:18 PM EST

put it in the context of her remarks. It was not a label the Repubs come up with.

And don't expect (none / 0) (#30)
by cal1942 on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:18:09 PM EST

anyone in the media to call them out. The media won't allow a gotcha moment applied to Republicans.


An embarrassment for anyone connected (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:54:16 AM EST

to the State of Iowa, which remains 5% minority.

On the Other Hand (none / 0) (#21)
by kaleidescope on Thu May 19, 2011 at 02:23:16 PM EST

Except for a tiny Polynesian minority, almost all people on or from Taiwan are Han Chinese. Either they migrated there during the Ming dynasty or they migrated there post 1947. "Taiwanese" is actually Min nan hua, the Chinese dialect that is spoken in Fujian Province, directly across the Taiwan Strait from Taiwan. Taiwanese opera is also, basically, Fijianese opera.

Then there are the descendants of the mainlanders who fled to Taiwan to escape the Communists in the 40's. They are also Han Chinese, many speaking Chinese with a heartwarming -- hard "r" -- Beijing accent.

Goodwin Liu is Chinese.

Right (none / 0) (#27)
by kaleidescope on Thu May 19, 2011 at 03:53:11 PM EST

And what you describe as native Taiwanese are a tiny, tiny part of the population there. I lived there for over a year and never met one. More relevantly, Goodwin Liu is not one of them.


: And all this time (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by cal1942 on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:21:19 PM EST

I thought Goodwin Liu was an American.

Liu comments are laughable (none / 0) (#37)
by coast on Thu May 19, 2011 at 05:12:46 PM EST

and Grassley's are ignorant. For Liu to equate the phrases of "free enterprise" and "private property ownership" as hostile to protections is paranoid. He might want to remember that we fought a war about 235 years ago so that we could prosper from one and obtain and keep another. Now the "limited government" phrase is certainly hostile to those on the left and on this site. As for Grassley, well his comment is just ignorant. The comment is racist for one, and his place is to concent only. Elections have consequences, and appointment of qualified judges is one of them.