According to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, Goodwin Liu should be the new judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because he is “the son of Taiwanese immigrants, and would bring much-needed diversity to the Federal bench. He has a brilliant legal mind, and is admired by legal thinkers and academic scholars from across the political spectrum.”
The Court of Appeals is only one step down from the U.S. Supreme Court — the highest court in the land. Liu has never served as a lower court judge. He has limited legal experience outside academia and has no real litigation or appellate experience. Liu worked as a junior associate at a law firm for 21 months and as a contract attorney for several weeks working on various business matters. Liu’s only experience arguing cases is one single case — a pro bono federal inmate’s appeal. Some third-year law school students have roughly as much practical experience.
In his confirmation hearing, Liu candidly admitted that he “can’t hold up for you a judicial resume” and asked the Judiciary Committee to look at “analogous evidence” of his qualifications. Liu offered that he is “a disciplined scholar,” “respectfully treats the views of others,” has “respect of colleagues” and is a “good listener.” A website devoted to Liu’s confirmation provides endorsements to his intelligence but not a word about practical legal experience. Liu’s rating of “well qualified” from the American Bar Association proves only that the ABA judicial rating system will ignore critical components when politically expedient. The ABA’s own standards state that “a prospective nominee to the federal bench ordinarily should have at least twelve years’ experience in the practice of law” and that “substantial courtroom and trial experience as a lawyer or trial judge is important.”
Liu is not even moderately qualified. It is fairly certain that, if any senator, the ABA rating group or their families had a matter before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, they would not hire Liu to represent them. Liu is not qualified to lead — never mind adjudicate — a case before the Court of Appeals. He simply does not have the requisite practical experience to even bring a case before the Court of Appeals.
Even Liu has admitted that intellect is a “necessary but not sufficient credential” for a senior federal judge. His primary sponsor, Senator Dianne Feinstein, acknowledged that a professional experience gap appears to exist when she stated, “The question is, can he make the transition?”
In his rather tepid acknowledgement of Justice Alito’s professional qualifications in 2006, Liu noted Alito’s “sharp analysis, lawyerly craft, and impressive mastery of complex issues.” Nowhere has Liu provided the Senate Judiciary Committee with evidence of his own lawyerly craft. That same testimony against Justice Alito contradicts his claim that he treats the views of others “respectfully.” Liu characterized Judge Alito’s record as “an America where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse; where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens . . . 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.” Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said, “If confirmed, I’m concerned that Mr. Liu will deeply divide the 9th.”
The Senate has the duty to determine the qualifications of judicial nominees. The burden is on a nominee to demonstrate his suitability for a lifetime appointment to the Court. If a nominee cannot clearly and convincingly demonstrate his suitability, including a high level of litigations, appeals and judicial experience, the Senate has a duty not to confirm that nominee. To appoint a politically attractive, intelligent “good listener” with no practical litigation, appeals or judicial experience to the Court of Appeals — in the hopes that the nominee would have or develop the requisite skills on the bench — would appear to be a gross violation of the duty of the Senate.
David Norcross is the chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association.
