home

GOP Smears Chinese-American Goodwin Liu With Communist Charge

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" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.  

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    Change? Future? (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 20, 2011 at 08:41:38 AM EST
    We have something called "Amendments."

    Parent
    Yes, amendments (none / 0) (#43)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 20, 2011 at 10:25:16 AM EST
    what's your point?

    Parent
    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?

    Parent

    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?

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    "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.


    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.   :-(

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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."

    Parent

    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 filibus