Goodwin Liu, a Berkeley Law professor, will begin confirmation hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow.

“For Americans wondering ‘how this happened’ in terms of Barack Obama’s massive takeovers of the nation’s health care and other industries, one need look no further than Goodwin Liu to see what Obama really thinks about what a ‘right’ is,” Wilson said.

“Goodwin Liu’s judicial philosophy that judges should render decisions based on societal consensus at a given moment rather than foundational principles is incredibly dangerous. He shouldn’t be on any court, especially not a court of appeals,” said Wilson.

As reported by National Review Online, in promoting his book, Keeping Faith with the Constitution for the American Constitution Society, Liu suggested in a podcast that “What we mean by fidelity is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.”

Wilson said that while Liu was “a smooth talker,” that Senators “must not excuse his views on ‘distributive justice.’ Beneath the ‘nice guy’ exterior, Goodwin Liu, like Obama, is a radical redistributionist of the first order.”

In a 2008 Stanford Law Review article, “Rethinking Constitutional Welfare Rights,” Liu discusses at length the concept of judicially-imposed welfare rights. In this context welfare rights mean a societal consensus that persons possess a right to certain goods and services, a consensus of “how a society understands its obligations of mutual provision.”

“The 2008 law review article is quite revealing,” Wilson said, “Goodwin Liu’s view of a welfare ‘right’ is that if the federal government offers a subsidy, a benefit or some other type of welfare, everyone is entitled to it, regardless if the ‘right’ has any place at all in the Constitution.”

According to the article, Liu wrote that, “judicial recognition of welfare rights is best conceived as an act of interpreting the shared understandings of particular welfare goods as they are manifested in our institutions, laws, and evolving social practices.”

Liu explained what this would look like in context of his actual decision-making as a judge, “Some day yet, the Court may be presented with an opportunity to recognize a fundamental right to education or housing or medical care. But the recognition, if it comes, will not come as a moral or philosophical epiphany but as an interpretation and consolidation of the values we have gradually internalized as a society.”

Wilson said Liu’s views would be used to “justify everything from Obama’s new national health care regime to the government takeovers of the mortgage, energy, and financial industries. Anything that government has sunk its claws into even partially could then become the justification for redistribution since, in Liu’s eyes, if it is offered to some, should be offered to all.”

Liu stated that his goal was to attempt “a small step toward ‘reformation of thought’ on how welfare rights may be recognized through constitutional adjudication in a democratic society.”

“In Goodwin Liu’s world, the courts could require that the legislative branch allocate taxpayer funds to whatever the courts say the people are entitled to as a matter of right,” Wilson explained. “This not only breaches the separation of powers, it would grant as a matter of constitutional law powers to the Congress to redistribute wealth that are far beyond the scope of what the Constitution provides for.”

Wilson called it “an incredibly dangerous proposition,” concluding, “Every Senator on the Judiciary Committee must hold Goodwin Liu to account for his radical views on redistributing wealth, place holds, and do whatever it takes to make sure he never sits on the bench.”

Attachments:

Goodwin Liu, Americans for Limited Government Nominee Alert, March 2010.

###

Last night, the House passed the Senate version of “ObamaCare” 219 to 212. Wilson encouraged states, like Virginia, to pursue their plans to sue against the constitutionality of the federal mandate that individuals purchase health insurance.

Wilson said that the “Constitution does not permit Congress to enact any mandate for individuals to purchase anything, let alone health insurance.”

According to the Roanoke Times, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will file his suit against the individual mandates tomorrow. “With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce,” Cuccinelli said. “We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.”

“The individual mandate is the mechanism that will force the American people on to government-run health care,” Wilson said.

“By design, ObamaCare makes insurance premiums more expensive and more unaffordable by mandating minimum levels of coverage. Now, as individuals are forced to purchase plans that they cannot afford, they will have no choice but to opt into a government plan, like Medicaid,” Wilson explained.

The relevant Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report stated, “CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law… Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law.”
The Senate version of the bill that the House adopted expands Medicaid eligibility to 133 percent of the poverty level. Wilson predicted that would be expanded further “as Congress conspires to make privately-bought insurance completely unaffordable.”

Wilson said that without the individual mandate, “ObamaCare will lose much of its teeth. The American people owe Attorney General Cuccinelli a debt of gratitude for taking the initiative to overturn to most egregious assault on individual liberty in a generation.”

###

“Americans from both sides of the political spectrum must accommodate themselves to Supreme Court decisions that are offensive to their ideological convictions. The liberal editors with The New York Times resolve this dilemma by ignoring the majority opinions in their coverage, while martyring dissenting justices,” said Kevin Mooney, Editor of TimesCheck.com.

“Despite all of the editorial posturing on behalf of civil liberties and constitutional rights, it is evident from recent reports that The Gray Lady has not come to terms with high court rulings that expand on First Amendment and Second Amendment freedoms,” Mooney added.

“Whatever the merits of a particular case, the majority opinion is the law of the land and deserves consideration and attention in the reporting,” said Mooney. “The cases should be open to criticism and scrutiny and it’s find to give at least one dissenting view space and attention but not at the expense of arguments that carried the day in court.”

The McDonald v. Chicago case now before the court is in many respects a sequel to the District of Columbia v. Heller case that ruled in favor of an individual right to own a gun. “The Times shows its hand by marginalizing the majority of opinion in Heller written by Justice Antonin Scalia. This does a great disserve to the readers because the justices who joined Scalia in Heller could very well rule the same way in McDonald,” said ALG President Bill Wilson.

Mooney described other Times coverage as a “crusade in favor of legislative changes to the Citizens United V. FEC ruling, which restored First Amendment freedoms lost under campaign finance laws.”

“Two of America’s most important founding principles – the right to free speech and the right to freely associate – were recently reaffirmed by the court as it set aside unconstitutional restrictions,” Mooney explained.

Mooney said the “whole concept of ‘Congress Shall Make No Law’ in the First Amendment has gone missing in The Times as does the larger case history. While it’s certainly appropriate to raise questions the potential impact of the court ruling on upcoming political races, the larger case history has been omitted here to the detriment of readers.”

“Allowing corporations, and for that matter unions, to have greater dexterity and flexibility where political advocacy is concerned will not threaten the republic’s foundations and the burden should be on those arguing in favor of restrictions,” Mooney added.

Wilson said The Times should be more “consistent,” concluding, “The same newspaper that hides behind the First Amendment whenever it leaks national security information should put a little more weight into the clear constitutional language the high court has restored to its proper station.”

###

Commenting on the implications of the polls, ALG President Bill Wilson said, “The results of these polls are crystal clear. If these incumbent House members vote for ObamaCare, they are going to be wiped out in the November, 2010 elections.”

###

March 16th, 2010, Fairfax, VA—New Mexico Congressman Harry Teague was denounced today for what was termed, “his total disrespect and disdain for New Mexico citizens” by Bill Wilson, President of Americans for Limited Government.

“For any elected official to blatantly lie in a futile attempt to keep from stating a position on an issue as controversial and important as the upcoming health care vote is the height of disrespect,” said Wilson. “Harry Teague owes everyone in the State of New Mexico an apology at the very least.”

On Tuesday (March 16, 2010) the Albuquerque Journal reported that Teague was claiming to be undecided on the impending health care vote. Teague was quoted as saying, “I don’t want to say for sure until we see exactly what the Senate sends over, but we’re going to look at it.”

“The problem is the Senate sent the government takeover of healthcare on Christmas Eve, over three months ago. What has Harry Teague been doing? Using this kind of dodge to a crucial question is obscene,” said Wilson.

“Harry Teague is treating the citizens like fools, acting like nobody would notice that the bill under discussion has been on the table for more than 100 days,” continued Wilson.

In the article, Teague spokesman Sara Schreiber claimed Teague “isn’t thrilled with the prospect of using reconciliation to get health care overhaul.” Reconciliation is normally reserved for budget fixes and not used for major policy changes. The Obama Administration and its allies are planning on using a distorted version of this process in an attempt to slip the measure into law with the least amount of accountability possible.

“If Ms. Schreiber and Congressman Teague have any integrity left at all they will oppose this gross distortion of the process and rules by opposing the reconciliation scam,” said Wilson. “We will have to wait and see if Congressman Teague is an independent representative of the People or just another zombie in the Obama-Pelosi circus that is now Washington, D.C.,” concluded Wilson.

###

Dawn Johnsen is Barack Obama’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General to the Office of Legal Counsel.

“ALG thanks Congressman King for acting on this urgent matter. The U.S. Senate, and the American people, have a right to know whether Johnsen circumvented the constitutional process of ‘advice and consent,’” Wilson said.

ALG filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Justice Department’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) attempting to confirm allegations that Johnsen has been performing duties pursuant to that office without being confirmed by the Senate, including making hiring decisions.

The ALG FOIA request, filed on October 26th, 2009, has gone unheeded in spite of a 20-day statutory requirement.

According Congressman King’s letter, “In order to confirm or dismiss allegations regarding Ms. Johnsen’s violation of pre-confirmation etiquette and potential disregard for the Constitution’s clearly defined Senate confirmation process, I respectfully request that you provide my office with copies of all records of communications between any Office of Legal Counsel officials and Dawn Johnsen regarding personnel decisions that involve hiring, firing, promotion, discipline or any other personnel actions for career and non-career Office of Legal Counsel officials.

“These are the same materials that have been requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by Nathan Paul Mehrens, Counsel for Americans for Limited Government.

“Under the FOIA, all federal agencies are required to receive any response to the request that was filed on October 26, 2009. The processing time for this request has far exceeded the period allowed under the FOIA. I am, therefore, making my own request to you for this information and also enclosing a copy of Mr. Mehrens’ original request. I look forward to your response and to both requests being fulfilled in a timely manner.”

King recently outlined some of his further objections to the nominee in an exclusive interview with the Washington News Observer.

The story was broken by the National Review Online, where according to the report, Johnsen may have been “involving herself in OLC’s decisions on hiring junior lawyers. If those reports are accurate, Johnsen’s actions would seem a serious violation of the Senate’s understanding of pre-confirmation etiquette—an etiquette that is especially punctilious for nominees who have generated controversy—and would give senators additional reason to oppose her nomination.”

Since the request was filed, over 90 business days has elapsed. Now, Mehrens has sent a follow-up letter to the DOJ, and Wilson urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to postpone consideration of Johnsen.

Despite the unfulfilled FOIA request, however, the committee voted to approve Johnsen 12 to 7 on March 4th, as reported by FOX News.

According to the law, “Each agency, upon any request for records… shall… determine within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination.”

“Clearly, Harry Reid wants to railroad this nomination through without any confirmation of these very serious allegations,” Wilson said, concluding, “It’s up to individual members of the Senate to keep their holds on Johnsen and to at least demand a recorded vote so that Senate members may be held accountable for their support.”
Attachments:

Freedom of Information Act Request, October 26th, 2009.

Letter to Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, February 24th, 2010.

Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee, February 25th, 2010.

Letter from Congressman Steve King to DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, March 1st, 2010.

ALG Backgrounder on Dawn Johnson, December 10th, 2009.

###

“Senator Jay Rockefeller has watched as the EPA is moving at lightning speed to issue regulation by fiat to cap carbon emissions, a cap that will devastate the U.S. economy, and is acting quickly to put the brakes on,” said Wilson.

“Given a choice between representing his constituents, many of whom work in the coal industry, and the radical bureaucracy of the EPA, who cater to a cult of ‘man-made’ global warming, Senator Rockefeller has chosen his constituents and the American people at large who oppose carbon caps,” Wilson added.

Wilson called for bipartisan support for Rockefeller’s bill, potentially merging it with Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) legislation that would overturn the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and welfare.

According to the Washington Post, Democratic Senators Blanche Lincoln (AR), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Ben Nelson (NE) are co-sponsoring Murkowksi’s resolution. And according to Rockefeller’s release, Congressmen Alan Mollohan (D-WV) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) are introducing companion legislation.

“The real threat to the U.S. is the EPA enacting by dictate regulations that, in effect, puts the agency in charge of the entire nation’s economy. Members of both political parties must stand together before it is too late to stand up to this tyranny by the EPA,” Wilson declared.

“The economy, every facet of which runs on energy, mustn’t be in the hands of the radical EPA bureaucracy who place primacy on appeasing the false science of radical environmentalism over the rights and best interests of all Americans,” Wilson concluded.

###

“Any administration would celebrate positive economic numbers as vindication for their policies. But not every president has The New York Times as a cheerleader and an apologist,” Mooney explained, adding, “Over the past few weeks The Gray Lady has reported with alacrity on robust Gross Domestic Product (GDP) numbers. But it has largely overlooked other key indicators that show the recovery to be weak, shallow and jobless.”

Mooney noted that both Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan experienced strong periods of economic growth during their terms in office that coincided with low inflation and low unemployment, “But, apparently, this did not qualify as news,” Mooney said.

“Whereas The Times went to great lengths to explain away good economic news under Republican Administrations, the approach now is to bury the reality of a jobless recover under rosy GNP numbers,” Mooney explained.

Mooney said what he dubbed “the agenda-based journalism” at The Times “often operates by way of omission. But thanks to the powerful research tools that are the bane of liberals, it is possible to compare and contrast the congenial coverage afforded to President Obama with that of his immediate predecessors.”

Mooney noted that the double standard extends beyond coverage of the economy. “Although The Times was vociferously opposed to the troop surge into Iraq under President Bush and continually questioned the reality of political progress, it is now largely silent. The newspaper was certain to question and criticize the wisdom of Bush’s post 9/11 counter-terrorism policies. But now that the current administration has come around closer to the Bush position on Guantanamo Bay, interrogation techniques and overseas operations shouldn’t this at least be acknowledged.”

Mooney said that progress was being made, though. “It’s getting hard for The Times and other liberal media organs to continue with these gymnastics,” he said, noting that the Times covered the “Climategate” story on page A11 today by John M. Broder.

“It’s getting a lot more fun for TimesCheck.com,” Mooney added.

“Despite an influx of scientific research that questions the premise of man-made global warming The Times had, until today, continued to crusade in favor of burdensome and expensive regulatory schemes modeled after the Kyoto Protocol. Scientists who have been vindicated are dismissed as mere skeptics, while alarmists are celebrated as ‘mainstream’ thinkers,” Mooney noted.

Mooney said, however, that there was still more work to do. “The overall presumption in favor of the man-made global warming still pervades,” he said, adding, “Recently, we asked that the newspaper focus some time and attention on comments made by Phil Jones, the director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom. In the aftermath of ‘Climategate,’ Jones has conceded key points skeptics have making for the past several years. Is the Times willing to backpeddle on previous reports that advanced alarmist positions that are not supported by the latest science? Today’s article did not do that. We’ll be watching to see if there’s any follow-up.”

Mooney promised to keep up his efforts “to hold The Times accountable when they’re wrong, and to point out when they’re right.”

“The New York Times has a problem in that most Americans do not operate as they do with a `blame America first’ mindset,” said Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson, concluding, “An active and informed citizenry is the great enemy of a biased, duplicitous press that deliberately shades and slants the news. Our goal is to serve as a conduit for members of the public who resent cultural elitists and leftists who are hostile toward American interests.”

###