In the guise of fact checking, the Support Goodwin Liu and Confirm Goodwin Liu blogs have resorted to throwing sand in the face of Whelan’s legitimate criticism and analysis of Liu’s extreme comments pertaining to case law and constitutional theory.

[Article first appeared at Red County.]
In a twist of fate tailored for headline writers at the New York Post, nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court, Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu, has once again been …

Wednesday’s scheduled Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Ninth Circuit Court judicial nominee Goodwin Liu was postponed in the hours leading up to the hearing.

More shocking than the revelation that Liu is an advocate for racial reparations, is his suggestion that a finding of guilt does not necessarily require any direct causation between a criminal act and the individual or group accused of committing said act. Liu’s indiscrete standard of what constitutes guilt for an individual in connection with crimes is a dangerous one of the sort on which, in its extreme application, states have rationalized their own unjust and inhumane acts.

Opposition to Liu should not focus on his personal opinions on specific issues, or the settling of partisan scores. It should be directed at exposing his extreme liberal judicial philosophy.