[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> photographers focusing in on california law professor goodwin liu. he is here before the senate judiciary committee. this will be a test case of president obama's ability to win confirmation for a liberal appeals court nominee. around one is today. -- around one is today.

live coverage here on c-span. -- round one is today. live coverage here on c-span.

>> i would like to welcome everyone to this morning's here in. -- hearing. we have just been joined by the chairman. mr. chairman, -- >> it is your hearing. >> we will hear from professor goodwin liu who has been nominated for a seat on the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit. professor goodwin liu is a nationally recognized expert on constitutional law and

educational policy. he is the associate dean of the university of california berkeley school of law. before i give some brief remarks, as also the center from california, i will like to just quickly go over the order of this hearing. there'll be five-minute rounds. we will use the early bird rule. we will go from side to side. following my statement, the ranking member will give his opening statement. of course, the chairman of the committee is here and if he wishes to make a statement he will do so. i will recognize senator gramm -- senator grasaham to introduce.

[applause] [laughter] >> we are glad to have you here. you did not are not -- >> you do not regard that as a promotion? then, i will introduce a series of letters into the record. then, we will call professor goodwin liu. thus for -- a four other candidates are magistrate judge , now dead from california, nominated from south carolina -- and nominated from california, nominative from south carolina, and nominated from north carolina. welcome all of you and your

families. i was privileged to have an opportunity to meet some of you briefly. let me say a few words about professor goodwin liu. he was born in agusta, georgia. he was raised by his parents who were taiwanese doctors. they had been recruited to the united states to provide medical care in under-served areas. his parents left taiwan when the country was still under martial law. they in viewed in him a deep respect for the opportunities afforded in the united states. professor goodwin liu did not learn to speak english until kindergarten because his parents did not want to speak with an accent. from that early age on, he has excelled again and again. he was co-valedictorian of his high school. he graduated from stanford university, where he was told-

president of the student body and received the university's highest award for service as an undergraduate. i have never before received a letter about a judge which was signed by three different presidents of the university i want to -- and i want to read some of it to you because i think it is important. goodwin new attended -- goodwin liu attended stanford while donald kennedy was present. he was the recipient of numerous awards for his academic excellence, leadership and contribution to the university. it includes an award for outstanding service to undergraduate education. it includes the dean's award for service. the ruth prize for excellence in writing.

the university's president," award for academic excellence. dr. kennedy worked with goodwin liu when he was one of the early student volunteers and leaders for the senator for public service at stanford. also, while he was co-president of the student body in his senior year. in 1990, donald kennedy wrote a personal letter recommending him for a rhodes scholarship. he yuan and used it to maintain a degree -- he used it and gained a degree. a former provost of the universe in chicago is not a scholar at stanford. he has come to no good the new as a stanford alumnus and a colleague -- goodwin liu as a stanford alumnus and a colleague. he continues -- considers him as a measured stored of the

constitution. he fully appreciates the commitment of the framers infidelity to the -- of the framers and fidelity to the constitution. goodwin liu is currently a member of the board of trustees at stanford university, the governing body. john hennessy has worked closely with him since his appointment as a trustee in 2008. he is an invaluable member of the board. he has served on the committee for audit and compliance, economic policy, planning and management and alumni and external affairs. in a group of highly accomplished trusties, he is widely regarded as insightful, hard-working, collegial and of the highest ethical standards. in summary, goodwin liu as a

student, scholar and trusty has economize the goal of stanford's founders, which was to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization -- teaching the blessings of liberty, regulated by law and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles has thrived by the in valuable rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. we highly recommend goodwin liu for the honor and responsibility of serving on the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit. the letter is signed john hennessy and donald kennedy. additionally, he began his legal career as a law clerk to two highly accomplished jurists. yuan jurist was on the united

states court of appeal and the other was justice ruth bader ginsberg. it is also worked as a special assistance in the special education. he has represented companies at a law firm of o'melveny and myers. he became professor at the school of law. his colleague work has been published in the nation from the top journals. in 2009, he received the university's highest honor given for teaching. throughout his career, he is the vote a particular care and attention to improving education opportunities for students in the united states. he is a supporter of voucher programs and charter schools. he served as a consultant for the severance as a unified school district. he has been awarded an award for

distinguished scholarship. he has an exceptional legal mind and a deep devotion to excellence in public service. so, now, before i mention the other individuals, i would like to turn to the ranking member for his remarks and any remarks he would care to make about this nominee. >> thank you madame chairwoman. we appreciate being with you. i am glad senator leahy can join us. i look for to this nominee today. i see my congressional colleagues. i do want to say a few things. i love this constitution. i love the great republic that we have been given. it is something that we should cherish and pass on to our children.

in this nominee, we have someone that i know you have recently spent a number of hours again. others who know him speak highly of him. professor goodwin liu has written broadly and many of the important issues concerning lot today. many people respect his riding. many people disagree with his writing. they represent the very vanguard of what i would call intellectual judicial activism, a theory of interpretation of our constitution and laws that empowers a judge to expand government and to find rights there that often have never been found before. i think this will provide an interesting discussion for us today. the president, out of all the

fine lawyers and professors in the country and in the ninth circuit has chosen prof. goodwin liu. i think it says something about his approach to the law, his philosophy of the law and we will be looking into that today. i will be asking questions about a number of things. there are many, many things that the professor has written. one in his stanford law review article of november of 2008 "rethinking constitutional welfare rights," he states that my thesis is the welfare rights depends on socially situated modes of reasoning that appear not to transcendent moral principles of an ideal society, but to the culturally and historically contingent meaning

of social good in our society. he goes on to say that "i argue that the judicial recognition of welfare rights is best the lead as an act of interpreted shared understanding of particular welfare and good as they are manifested in our institution, law and the ball in faculties." he goes on to say that use the kabul welfare rights represent the collective judgments rather than the tidy logic of instant moral theory. well, i think that is a matter we should talk about and deal with honestly and fairly today. i hope that we will be able to do that. i believe a professor who had been at do -- who had been at

duke university made remarks that if you truly respect and -- respect the constitution, you will and forced whether you like it or not. that is the power of the judge. -- added a column of the judge. they are not empowered to enact what they consider to be social opinions of the day and then redesign the meaning of the constitution. if a judge feels they have that power, and this is a theory that is a foot in america today, judges who feel they have that power i believe of use the constitution, disrespect the constitution and if it is too deeply held it can actually disqualified them from sitting on the bench. i would note that prof. goodwin liu understands, i think, the

importance of judicial philosophy in the confirmation policy when he opposed justice roberts'confirmation, issuing a statement that it is fair and essential to ask how a nominee, judge roberts, would interpret the constitution and its basic value. americans deserve real answers to this question and it should be a sensible focus of the confirmation process. he concluded that his disagreement was so severe that he advocated him not being confirmed in the senate. he testified in this committee to very aggressively oppose the confirmation of justice of the bill. madam chairman, we have a number

of issues we want to talk about. i want to give the nominee a chance to respond fairly to the concerns of his failure to produce certain documents and records and so forth. he is entitled to that. i do believe that he did not spend nearly enough time in evaluating the questionnaire and promptly responded to it to a degree that i have not seen since i have been in the senate. i will also note that the nominee has not been in court, trying cases, he has never tried a case, where argued a case for appeal and therefore lacks the normal experience that we look for. he has an academic record and that is all we have to judge his judicial philosophy on. we intend to pursue that and hope to have a good hearing and

a nice discussion about the future of law in america. >> thank you, very much center. we will have a good hearing and appreciate all members having an open mind. i would like to ask the chairman of the committee he has any comment to make before we proceed further. >> i will put my full statement in the record. i thank you for doing this hearing. this is the third time we have had its schedule. this time there was a parliamentary robot. -- road blocked. i saw one of the fox news, enters called his -- commentators -- i hate to suggest a double standard, but i will.

i think of another widely regarded law professor as professor michael mcconnell, who was also supported by a senior member of this committee, senator orrin hatch, president 0, -- prof. of mcconnell was nominated by him president bush. he expressed strong opposition to roe vs. wade. he had testified before congress that he believes the violence against women act was unconstitutional. that is what we had worked on the ad had been passed by a bipartisan majority. -- had worked on and had been passed by a bipartisan majority. he had a number of other areas where he is strongly critical of the supreme court.

but, he says that he felt he believed in the doctrine that he would be bound to follow supreme court precedent. i supported, even though i disagree with just about everything he had written about, i believe him when he said that he would follow supreme court precedent. i supported his nomination and on like now, when even people come out of here unanimously and are held up month after month, week after week, he was reported favorably by this committee was confirmed in the 10th circuit by voice vote, and he was reported within a day what of his nomination being reported. within one day. we have people now in the lower court and you have to file to

get them through. i put my full statement in the record. >> if i could respond since my name was mentioned, i would note that this nominee, professor goodwin liu was set for a hearing in 28 days, when the average court of appeals nominee for the obama administration so far was 48 days and during the time when president bush was in office, the average time wait between nomination and a hearing when senator leahy was chairman was 247 days. i think we are moving of the to more rapidly than all of the members on our side felt we should, cents as late as tuesday night we were still receiving documents that should have been pursued -- produced earlier. i think this nomination is moving very fast.

we will do our best to be prepared, although it is difficult to with a sort time frame to evaluate large numbers of documents, 117 that have been produced since the first hearing was set. >> thank you. >> we did not have to go back and forth, but within three weeks of the time i became chairman of this committee i scheduled and held hearings on president bush's court of appeal on nominees. that is not quite 280 days. >> i hope we do not get into a discussion of this, but i feel that i should point out that this hearing has already been delayed twice. chairman leahy originally intended to hold a hearing on march 10. that was 37 days ago. after ranking member's request, he delayed it to march 24.

the minority then used a procedural tactic on the floor to block the hearing. in the meantime, prof. goodwin liu has been attacked and never really given a chance to speak. it is simply not fair and it is certainly not the american way. i will not go into a lot of the judicial confirmation statistics, but i will say that in the first 15 months of the obama administration, only 18 judicial nominees have been confirmed. by the same time in the bush administration, 42 nominees had been confirmed. so, now, i would like to recognize senator wednesday gramm and rep cliburn's. >> i am wondering if i could be recognized for just a minute. i have to catch a train.

>> you certainly can. is that agreeable with everyone? >> i will be very brief. i wanted to stop by today to urge my colleagues to move with dispatch on the nomination of goodwin liu. it is my hope that we will confide one day soon an opportunity to break the gridlock which has engulfed the senate floor for some time now on the judicial issues. we have the filibuster on the other side of 2005 and we finally worked through it with the so-called gang of 14 where we solved the problem. no filibuster's except under unusual circumstances. i have reviewed mr. goodwin liu's record. i see he is a yale law school graduate.

with some personal experience on those credentials, that is an extraordinary background. >> you leave out stanford. [laughter] >> he has a good supplemental record, too. we really need the best and brightest in these positions. the business about the filibuster is being carried to just a ridiculous extreme. senator casey and i have a district court judge that is extraordinary, but would have to file a petition. so many petitions have been filed and then been confirmed unanimously or virtually unanimously. there really has to be some break point where we stop the retaliation. if it takes another gang of 14,

or perhaps, more happily, a gain of 100 to get it done, i urge my colleagues. i wanted to come by for a few moments. i appreciate you taking me out of order. >> thank you, center. if we might proceed for senator wednesday gramm and rep cliburn -- if you like to proceed. >> thank you. i hope this is something we can all agree on. i am honored to be here to make a recommendation to the committee about these two fine individuals. we have two republican senators with a democratic president. i think some of you have been in that situation in a reverse roe. when it comes to judges, congressman cliburn, and myself,

along with the administration have been able to put together a package of four district court judges. i'm very proud of our work. i want to recognize what congressman cliburn has done. he has been a great partner for dealing with this issue and an administration that has been very flexible. i want to congratulate the demonstration for nominating these two fine individuals. when i get through speaking, you will realize why we are proud. the first judge, michelle child's is the first administrative judge. she was registered as well qualified. she was the first african- american partner for one of the biggest firms in south carolina. if she was the deputy,. she is a graduate of the universe itself carolina school of business. she is married and has one

daughter. i would just like to say this. every lawyer that i know of that has appeared before her, regardless of their political persuasion or philosophy has nothing but great things to say about judge child's as being fair. those that are paring before her feel like they're getting a rewarding experience she would do a great job as a district court judge. they're very proud of her. richard is an outstanding member of our bar. he was joe lieberman's campaign manager. that did not work out too well. joe is my favorite democrat and he is my favorite republican. [laughter] i have a warm spot in my heart for him. he has represented at the state

of carolina. -- this date of south carolina. he has two sons. from a lawyer's perspective, he is one of the best lawyers we have in south carolina. he will bring to the bench a very deep practice and background experience which i think we're making a very capable judge. to the administration, thank you for approving this package. to congressman cliburn, thank you for being a good partner on this and other matters. i appreciate any support you could give these two fine individuals. thank you. >> thank you. rep cliburn, welcome to the other side. >> thank you so much for allowing me to appear here today on behalf of michele and richard. i want to begin by thanking my

colleague from south carolina. i really wish to associate myself with the remarks that he just made. senator gramm and i are from different sides of the aisle. we agree on the temperament of these two distinguished nominees. i have known these nominees for years. i could go on for hours of vouching for their character and reputation. i would ask that my full statement be included in the record along with there resonates. president obama has chosen two very qualified individuals. i use the word historic. each of them brings a new level of diversity to the south carolina federal courts. once confirmed, we will have the first jewish judges and michele child to be the second african-american judge in south

carolina. she will also be the third woman and the third african- american justice. in addition to their diverse backgrounds and experiences they have explained -- displayed exceptional and tried integrity and an unwavering commitment to justice madam chair, as center lense gramm has indicated, judge child's currently sits on the court of general jurisdictions. she served for the criminal court. she served as chief administrative judge for the state business court. according to the chief justice, she has the day when she is demonstrated a dedication to the job and work ethic that is unmatched by others.

she tells a story that i believe tells a -- that i believe it? -- demonstrates the kind of judge she is no value add commitment she has to the law. late one friday afternoon, she called the county court horse. she found -- the courthouse. she was able to solve the issue with intelligence and compassion. just two days later, she delivered her first child. in the words of the chief justice, commitment is her yuan watchword. i hate to use -- i hate to lose her. prior to taking the bench, she was a commissioner for the worker compensation commission from 2002 until 2006. she is a former president of the

south carolina bar young lawyers division she currently serves on house of delegates. madame chairwoman, i also have the pleasure of introducing richard gergel. i've known him since he was a high school -- in high school. he has to ability and experience to serve well. his extensive experience as a trial lawyer. his a principal partner where he has specialized in personal injury litigation and discrimination matters since 1983. i have known him in my capacity as state and affairs commissioner for almost 18 years. i find him to be a good guy to

work with on issues and even a good guy when we are on opposite sides of the issue i want to conclude by urging the committee and the senate as a whole to move expeditiously to confirm these two candidates. currently, 30% of the seats on the federal bench in south carolina are vacant. expeditious confirmation of the steps below a standing nominees would do the legal profession proud and would be a good thing for the state of south carolina and the united states of america. i think the committee so much for allowing me to be here today. >> we thank you you representative clyde burn. senator lynch gramm, i know you have other things to do. if you wish to be excused, it is your option. thank you, a very much. we have received letters from both senator byrd and senator

hayden. they regret the they could not be here today. they have asked that i submit their support for judge catherine the goals. >> i would just announced that senator byrd also gave me that statement and did express his regret and his strong support for the nominee and the person that is fair and has the intellect and integrity to be a fine judge. >> i appreciate that. i would also added that judge eagles has presided and been unanimously rated as well qualified the american bar association. we look for it to her testimony. i would also submit at this time at center of boxer's statement.

she regrets she is unable to be here. she is asked me to submit her statement in support of profs goodwin liu. i would also like to recognize members of the house of representatives. representative mike honda is here today. also, we very much welcome you. thank you very much. now, mr. goodwin liu, would you please come forward and if you would introduce your parents and your family at this time, and then i will administer the oath. >> thank you, so much, madame chair. i am delighted to be able to introduce my family. with me, from california sitting in green behind me is my wife,

anne o'leary. she is a native of maine. her parents could not be here as -- with us. i looked into this them as well. in her arms is my four-week old son, emmitt, who i hope you will give us special dispensation to sleep through this hearing. i think we will all be better off for it. sitting next to my wife is the apple of our allies. that is my daughter of violent. she is three-years old. it turns out that she and my son share the same birthday. we have been tried to explain to her that i am the nominee to be a judge. about three days after my nomination she ask me if i was a judge yet. i said, well, that is not the way this works. she became so as -- show here

interested in the constitutional process the she decided to join us here today. sitting in the row right behind are my parents. they go by there are initials, wp and yc. they came to support me. i have a brother who also lives in the bay area. he is a doctor and could not get a day off to be here. i also wanted to introduce him. behind me is a large number of my former students and friends. i would just like to recognize them and the special efforts they made to support me. i do not have any further statements. i have to answer. >> thank you, very much. if you would stand and raise your right hand. do you a from the testimony you're about to give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do.

>> thank you very much. >> madam chair. >> mr. chairman. >> professor goodwin liu, he should not that folks on this commit -- you should note that people on this committee are constantly inundated with having to see pictures of my grandchildren. i am delighted to see your children. they're beautiful children. >> thank you, very much. >> professor goodwin liu, if you would pretty -- please proceed and make a brief statement. >> i have no opening statement. i would have to proceed with answering the committee plenty rich in the committee's questions. >> that is very unusual. let me begin.

in a letter yesterday, ranking member sessions wrote the following and i quote "there is now a serious question as to whether professor goodwin liu has approached this process with the degree of candor and respect required of nominees who come before the committee. we can no longer extend him the benefit of the doubt that a substantial admissions in which several of these extreme statements appear where a mere oversight." i would like you to tell the committee, if you will, what process did you used to provide materials to the committee and high -- and how were these supplemental materials overlooked and were they provided? >> thank you for the question. i am happy to have an opportunity to address that issue. first, let me acknowledge the

frustration of members of the committee with the way i have handled the questionnaire. i want to make absolutely clear my assurance to this committee today in the most sincere and unambiguous way possible that i take very seriously my obligations to the committee and i want to try to be as forthcoming and complete in the information that i provide to you. i think it is fair to say at this point, madam chair, that if i had an an opportunity to do things differently, i would have done things differently. when i prepared my questionnaire, i need a good- faith effort to respond -- to provide materials to the questions. it became evident to me very quickly that the submission was incomplete. so, i read-doubled my efforts

to -- i redouble my efforts to search for anything that could be responsive to the questionnaire. the result was a supplemental submission that the committee has, i believe dated april 5. some of the items are things that i should have found. things i should have found the first time. other items where things that i did disclose in the original commission, and where i was able to find a web page or a web link, and i included that as well. still, other items were things like browned -- brown-bag lunches and faculty seminars and alumni events that i had not thought to look for the first time because they were of the sort of thing that i do day-to- day as a professor and not things i prepared remarks for or even keep careful track of.

i submitted all of these items to the committee in the interest of providing the fullest possible information for your consideration. i am sorry that the list is long and i am sorry that i missed things the first time. for better or for worse, madam chair, i have lived most of my professional life in public. my record is an open book. i i absolutely have no intention, and frankly no ability, to conceal things i have said, written or done. i want to express to you today, my fullest commitment to providing all the information that you need and want in considering my nomination and i would like to do anything i can

to earn the trust of the members of the committee in my obligation to be forthcoming, both in my testimony today and with respect to the written materials. >> thank you very much. you are not the only nominee that has not been able to provide all documents at a given time. in testimony before this committee, you criticized some of the judicial opinions of then judge sam lee tel. particular, four of his opinions on the death penalty. i am one that has supported the death penalty. i have two questions. what was your object if -- objection to then, judge alito, and would you have any problem of holding the death penalty as a circuit court judge.

>> the answer to the second question is absolutely not. i would have no difficulty or objection of any sort, personal or a legal to enforcing the law as written with respect to the death penalty. my riding has never questioned the constitutionality of the death penalty. with respect to judge alito , i submitted to this committee opinions in cases where there were divided panels and thus, the most contentious cases. in all four of those cases, there were dissenting views offered by his third circuit colleagues, including republican-appointed colleagues. i believe my testimony highlighted what i thought were some concerns that were legitimately expressed in those cases.

i believe in three of four of those cases, his view did not prevail. in one of those cases is you did prevail. >> thank you. senator sessions. >> professor goodwin liu, i appreciate your statement about the omissions. you are correct that some of the items might not have been easy to discover or remember. some of them, as you noted, should have been disclosed. the question here calls for all interviews you have given and provide the date for those and so forth. you failed to do that. it comes on the heels of the attorney general having forgotten that he filed a breach with janet reno and two other former leaders. it raises a point to me that

this is a serious question. i am going to continue to look at this. i feel like you did not spend enough time on this, and perhaps some of it was because the hearing was moved so rapidly. and those supplementals that you filed, where as a result of complaints and questions from the staff, things that others have found, and when it was produced after the date of your first scheduled hearing, was it not? >> yes it was, center. -- senator. >> we want to be sure we have a

complete and fair hearing. it is fair to ask what standards we should use yen evaluations of the nominee. you, in 2005 were highly critical of chief justice roberts nominations. you wrote, "there is no doubt he had a brilliant legal mind, but a supreme court nominee must be evaluated on more than legal and collect." i think that is correct. then, you criticized his work for a group called the national legal senator for the public interest, stating that "its mission is to promote among other things, free enterprise, private ownership of property and limited government." these are code words for any ideological agenda high style to the environmental workplace and consumer protection.

by the time he was nominated to this court, in addition to his clerkship, he had served as a top lawyer at the department of justice, the same office you have. he was nominated, and in the white house compel office, he was solicitor general, have led the appellate practice and a prominent law firm, had argued 39 cases before the supreme court, more than i believe anyone in the country at that time, certainly of his generation, as well as cases before every federal court of appeals in the country. i understand you're criticizing his nomination, but how you compare your experience to move to the court that is one step below the u.s. supreme court. how you compare your experience

to that of chief justice john roberts? >> >> he has an extraordinarily distinguished record both as a lawyer and a judge. i believe almost any nominee would be fearful of comparing their record to that of the chief justice. i suppose, senator, that i would leave the comparison to others. i have not have some of the -- had some of the experiences that chief john roberts had. i would like to think that i have had other respect -- expenses that might be valuable. >> likewise, you are highly critical of justice alito's nomination. you testified that intellect is a necessary, but not essential credentials.

we care about a nominee's judicial philosophy. i agree with you on that. likewise, i think you would acknowledge that justice alito had an extraordinary record. he served for three years as a solicitor general, the office of legal counsel in the department of justice, a united states attorney for new jersey, had argued 12 cases before the supreme court, at least two dozen cases before the federal court of appeals. have you argued any cases before the supreme court or any case before the federal court of appeals? >> i have not argued any before the supreme court, but i have argued yuan for the federal court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. >> i want to be fair about this.

i know senator feinstein believes that we should not personally attacked nominees, but you and your testimony in the alito nomination use said " did judge's envisions an america where the police may shoot an unarmed boy to stop him to run away with a purse, where the fbi may install a camera where you sleep on the promise that they will not turn it on unless an informant is in the room, where a black man might be sentenced to death by an all-white jersey -- jerry, and where police may search for a warrant.

this is not the america we know, nor the america we aspire to be." the thing that is a fair analysis of his record? these think it need -- do you think it is a fair analysis of this record? if it meets the standards we would normally hope to achieve? >> -- do you think it meets the standards we would normally achieved? >> the passenger rest is perhaps unnecessarily colorful language i used to describe opinions. let me, if i may, back up and simply say that as with chief justice roberts, i have the highest regard for his intellect and work as a lawyer. in many ways, my regard for justice alito goes even further

because him and i share an immigrant family background. he came from humble origins, attended public school, and the best of his opportunities to accomplish all did he has accomplished today. have the highest regard for those accomplishments and his trajectories. my criticisms and the concerns that i expressed were limited to one area, and that was the area individual's rights come up against assertions of governmental power. in that area, i have some specific concerns about his opinions on the third circuit. it did not come by testimony about him, extend further extend to other areas. >> thank you. i would like to say that it is unfair to him. he is a mainstream justice and

it raises questions to me about where your philosophy of judging is. >> thank you. senator leahy. i am extremely expressed with your background. i know that richard painter had worked with a number of president bush's nominees. he has no problem to your responses to the questionnaire. he said that a lot of the items left off were relatively unimportant, and redundant of what had already been exposed. i agree with the former official of the bush administration. i also recall, on these

questions of what might be said when president bush nominated michael mcconnell, as i noted earlier, his provocative writings, yuan is to reexamine the first amendment -- yuan is to reexamine the first amendment, opposition to roe vs. wade, opposition to the violence against women act which was passed here at unanimously, but, but, i agree with the doctrine. i supported his nomination. he was confirmed the next day. i would love to see that same standard applied to you -- the standard that republicans and democrats applied. let me ask you this question. would you recuse yourself from litigation issues that you have been involved with?

>> mr. chairman, i would yeah, in all matters that would come before me if i were lucky enough to be confirmed as a judge, who applied they principles of refusal letter contained in the united states code and i think those standards require judges to avoid the appearance or reality of any conflict of interest or appearance of bias. i would apply those with great fidelity in consultation with my colleagues on the bench to have had experience with those standards. >> i know any time i argued cases before the circuit court of appeals, i was mindful of the fact that the judge's normally follow their own president, but would fall of the supreme court precedents. if you go on to the court, would you follow the ninth circuit precedent and the precedents of

the supreme court? >> absolutely. >> would you be bound to those precedents? >> absolutely, i would. >> would you keep an open mind to those cases coming before you? >> i would approach every case with an open mind, mr. chairman. . .

gretzky harshly criticized the supreme court's decision with bob jones -- >> he harshly criticized the supreme court decision with bobby jones. that was an 8-1 decision so the irs could revoke universities tax exemption because it violated the anti-discrimination laws. he was enormously critical of that. he was confirmed by voice vote. now, do you believe just because, like michael mcconnell who was supported by every single republican, who have been extraordinarily critical of the supreme court, do you believe any criticism you might have made would make it more difficult? >> no, mr. chairman. there is a clear difference

between what things people write as scholars and how one would approach the role of a judge. those two are very different things. as scholars, we are paid, in a sense, to question the boundaries of the law, to raise new theories, to be provocative in ways that it is simply not the role of a judge to be. their role of the judges to faithfully follow the law as it is written and as it is couldn't -- given by the supreme court. and there is no room for a convention or creation of new theories. that is simply not the role of a new judge. >> thank you. i have a letter written to us by kenneth starr written to senator sessions and myself. i will give the last paragraph

of it. "in some, you have before you a judicial nominee demonstrating independent, outstanding character." referring to you, of course. he gave you the highest possible rating they could give a nominee. he said of a we recognize -- and he said, we recognize [unintelligible] in the end, however, the judge is to uphold the constitution. [unintelligible] the ability to discharge faithfully in the ability to afloat -- to uphold the law. because he possesses those abilities to the highest degree, we feel he would serve with great distinction.

he goes on to say that your support of the confirmation and puts that in the record. we have letters from 27 former prosecutors and judges commanding your commitment to the constitution -- commanding your commitment to the constitution. -- commending your commitment to the constitution. and i put in the record that i strongly support this nominee. >> thank you. senator hatch, your next. -- you are next. >> welcome to the committee hearing. your wife and family are beautiful. and there's no question that i believe you are very -- you have a very good intellect with a lot

of ability. as i evaluate this, i try to get the kind of picture of the kind of judge they would be. and i look closely at how much power they think judges should have over the law to decide cases. a lot of -- the law that federal judges to use is written law, such as statues and a written constitution. we can all read what the law says. the purpose of the judges to determine what it means. judges have more places to look for the meaning of what and the more powerful they become an art. the more power judges have over what the law means, the last hour the people and their elected representatives have. -- the u.s. power the people and their elected representatives have. -- the less power the people and their elected representatives have. in your book you write "social practices and evolving norms"

give meaning to the constitution. in an interview about the abuse at "the constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt -- you said "of the constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt to the conditions of our society in every single generation ago in a set -- stanford law article, you grow -- in every single generation." in a stanford law article you wrote, that they can be crystallized into legal doctrine. it seems to me that this type of approach gives all the power to judges. id and let -- unless judges decide -- it lets judges decide what they want a constitution to mean, not necessarily what it says. after all, judges and pick what practices to consider. judges decide how this or that

norm is evolving. judges pick what social challenges or conditions are relevant, which values our collective, how they have converged, crystallized, or been absorbed. if your philosophy is correct, well, you wrote in the book but this is the ability to the constitution. to me, it sounds more like philip -- fidelity to judges rather than the constitution. let me ask you this, do you stand by these approaches that you have written and spoken about? and do you really think that judges should have this much power over the law? and what can be identified as the constitution after judges have finished adapting it generation after generation with

changing conditions and judges, what will be left of the constitution if that is your approach? these are things that bother me and these are things that say to me -- well, good question marks in mind as to whether or not you would probably act as a judge. it is one thing to be a law professor and make a lot of hypotheticals and things. we are very grateful to the law professors like you, but what about that? do you still stand by these approaches a as though you can make a lot anything you want to? and you cannot mean that, but tell me what you think. >> first, thank you for extending the welcome to me and to my family. it is an honor to be here. it means a lot to me and to them. secondly, i think that whatever i may have written in the books and articles would have no

bearing on my role as a judge. my role as a judge, i think, is clearly to follow the path laid for me -- >> how can you say that? isn't that your core philosophy, what you have written? >> it is my core understanding of the duties of an appellate judge. if i may specifically raised -- to address the concerns you raised. and i can certainly understand how the freeze is your red lead to the concerns that you have, and i appreciate -- how the phrases you have read lead to the concerns that you have, and i appreciate the opportunity to explain. our constitution is very special because it is a written constitution. it is a text. as a text, it is a permanent and bottom end of the core principles and structures of government that -- embodiment of the core principles and structures of government that we

have chosen as a nation. in that text is very special and the principles that are embodied in that text and you're over the ages. those things do not change and the text of the constitution does not change except in article 5 of the constitution. what we argue in the book is that in order to preserve the meaning of that text, in order to preserve the power of that text, it is necessary for judges in some areas of the law to give those phrases and words meaning in taught -- in light of the current conditions of society. not all phrases, mind you. there are many parts of the constitution that are clear-cut. and you need to witnesses to convict someone of treason, not one. that is a clear interpretation. but where the constitution says, for example, unreasonable searches and seizures that are prohibited under the fourth

amendment, the court has instructed that in applying that phrase what we are looking at -- what we are to look to are the legitimate expectations of privacy that people have in a society. to close my answer, one example that we offer in the book, in 1961 the court decided a case called cats vs the u.s. which considers the issue of whether the requirement of physical trespass was necessary to make out an unreasonable search and seizure under the fourth amendment. that was a case of telephone wire taps. the court said, in this day and age, the answer to that is, no, a physical trespass is not necessary because people have becomcome to legitimately expect privacy in their telephone calls. that is not new technology applied to old principles. and rather, i think it is for the court to discern what the societal expectations we have around phone calls, as opposed to other challenges and around

other things like e-mail and internet. those things are still being litigated and perhaps the privacy principles are not as clear-cut. but with respect to phones in 1961, the court said the fourth amendment applies. and that is the kind of approach that these passages are meant to illustrate. >> my time is up. i will probably have to wait for the second round. expects thank you, senator hatch. -- >> thank you senator hatch. senator klobuchar? >> i was going to follow up on senator hatch pose a question and you explained what is constitutional -- on senator hatch's question. can you explain what constitutional the ability is to you? and my question is, is there any particular way for the judge to interpret the constitution? >> no, i do not think there is any one specific way. in fact, i think the court in a

variety of cases has said there is not a formula, a mechanical process. the art of judging involves more than just a formula. >> the defenders of our regionalism, like justice scalia concurre, are the last originals -- the defenders of regionalism, like justice scalia, would you say that they are less legitimate than other judges? >> i would never say justice olli of 11 -- less legitimate judge. i would like to be careful in my answer to the question. if or regionalism is taken to mean that the original understanding -- originalism is taken to mean that the original understanding of the constitution is the sole touch- tone -- touchstone, i would say that the court has never and

here to the methodology. if the original meaning is taken to mean instead at the original meaning and the text are very consideration -- very important considerations that any judge must look to, absolutely. i believe that is absolutely true, and in many cases that could be determinative, but it is not in some sense the soul, or the ultimate touch-tone against which all other considerations must yield. rex you would agree that judges could come at this with a different constitutional -- >> you would agree that judges could come at this with a different constitutional interpretation when looking at a specific case. i am getting at your answers to senator leahy between the difference between a scholar and a judge. i was thinking back to my days in chicago where professor is robert was my judge -- professor easterbrook is now a judge.

they had a clear view of economics and a lot. it is a of view that not everyone would agree with. by the way, i think easterbrook was the younger than you, 36 years old, when he came before this committee. my question of view is, do you believe that judges can separate out -- my question of view is, do you believe that judges can separate out not only as a scholar, but as an advocate? >> i believe they can and i believe they must. >> very good. we have been focusing on a lot of your past advocacy and a scholarship as we would with any nominee, but as your life story, i see that your parents are sitting in the back and i

understand that they emigrated from taiwan. and you did not even speak english until he was 5 years old and you went on to the auditorium of cure high school class and went on to attend stanford and oxford and yale. --could you talk about your sto, which is half your life? could you talk about how that will influence u.s. a judge? >> certainly, senator. -- will influence you as a judge? >> certainly, senator. i feel in many ways i have lived a very ordinary life. but i have had very extraordinary opportunities along the way. the first of those extraordinary opportunities was to have parents who really cared about education. they came from a society that

did not at the time know many of the freedoms that we take for granted in america. and that has always stuck with me as a very important consideration. i have also had a tremendous educational opportunities at the fine institutions that you mentioned. and i have also had tremendous mentors along the way. i'm very glad that congressman matsui is here today because her husband, bob, who died and untimely death, was one of my early mentors on politics and a lot. the combination of all of these, i think, has made me the person i am and i believe in all of the intangible ways that would influence my perspective, hopefully for the better, as a judge.

>> thank you very much. >> thank you senator klobuchar. senator kyl is actually next on the list, but he has very generously permitted senator coburn to go ahead. >> thank you, senator feinstein. and i thank senator carl. we have a hearing going on with the financial breakdown of investigations. * r a was not here for your opening statement, but -- i am sorry i was not here for your opening statement, but i have read it. i must tell you, based on what i've read i am highly concerned. i think you and i have a completely different philosophy when we look at the u.s. constitution. i want to try to understand where you are to give you a fair opportunity to convince me of how wrong i am. yuko wrote an article on

congress, the courts, and because -- you co wrote an article on congress, the courts and the constitution and you criticized the supreme court for overturning the guns rights of stating, "even more astounding than the common rights -- common sense legislation was that the house passed with only one dissenting vote and the senate passed its by unanimous consent, is its eagerness to do so in a way that deliberately excludes congress, and by extension, the american people, in defining what the constitution requires and permits." your continued in that article, "the recent arguments do not pretend to be debate. instead, they are the sole arbiter of constitutional mean." more and more, congress and the american people are regarded as mere targets of traditional discipline, unable to live and govern themselves within enforceable limits.

the court made a final say on constitutional interpretation, but i do not see why it should have the only say. then in a press interview, concerning a legal challenge to california's proposition 8, which overturned california's supreme court ruling in favor of gay marriage, you said, should the democratic process be allowed to enact a sizable short pants? or is a more legislative process required? -- by a show of hands? or is in our legislative process required? you wrote, talked -- proposition 8 targets an historic week vulnerable group. indeed, as early as the nation's founders, our constitutional tradition has favored representative democracy over simple majority rule when it comes to deciding minority

rights. i am a physician. i'm not a lawyer. along with senator feinstein ran out on this committee, we're the only two that are not. and i understand in one instance you are discussing the commerce clause. and in another, you're commenting on the 14th amendment. but it seems to me that the one case in which the american people should have a say in the constitution through the democratic process and in another, they should not. this distinction based on these two episodes would appear based on what you personally think which right is important or is that issue. can you please explain why a court should consider the milk -- the will of the majority as expressed through the legislative process one restricting gun rights, but not upholding the law protecting traditional marriage? >> thank you for the question and i am pleased to address it. if i could clarify,v the passags

you read about proposition 8, i actually testified before the california assembly and senate judiciary committees in october implications of proposition 8, in particular the anticipated state constitutional challenge to the process by which that amendment to the state constitution was adopted. the testimony i gave was very clear, senator, that i believe that proposition 8 should be upheld. , not struck down. but -- not struck down, but upheld by the california supreme court. i was asked to testify in my role as an unusual legal expert, and despite what other rules i may have had to my personal rules, whatever, and even my legal rules in the past, i testified before the committee that the california supreme court should uphold that in

deference to the democratic process. >> if i can correct your testimony, what you said is that you thought that they would, not that you should -- not that they should. i believe that was your testimony. you said that they would. my question remains the same. how on one hand can you say the court -- in other words, how are you going to pick out? if your an appellate judge, how will you pick which time you say you get the choice or we get the choice? the fact is, that is a whole new intervention in judicial philosophy for me, when an old guy from the sticks in a coma. when i see this book and i kind of like -- from the sticks in oklahoma. when i see this book and a kind of like it and we're going to be picking which way we're going to do it. it is a market in consistency. -- a marked inconsistency.

let me go on, if i may. in a recent supreme court decision, robert verses summons, justice scalia stated in his dissent that the basis -- the basic position of dissent that the american laws are to be rejected out of hand. he continued that what these foreign sources a firmer than repudiate is the justices notion of how the world ought to be -- a firm rather than repudiate is that the justices notion of how the world ought to be ought to be henceforth in america. i happen to agree with that philosophy and i'm sure you knew that before you came in here. and for that reason, some of your statements about for a lot deeply concerned me. in an article that you published

in a university law school in japan, you say the use of foreign authority in american constitutional law is a traditional practice that has been controversial in recent years. the resistance for -- to this practice is difficult for me to grasp since the u.s. can hardly claim to have a monopoly on why solutions deface our democracies around the world. the only problem with that is that when you are sworn in, you will swear and how slow growth and the allegiance to this document. -- an absolute oath and allegiance to this document. it is not about having an mdot -- having a monopoly on being accurate. it is about having a monopoly on the ruble. -- the rule book. >> i do not believe for law should control the interpretation of the u.s. law, whether it is the u.s. constitution or a statute.

i believe the use of foreign law contains within it many potential pitfalls. in other words, what i've observed these justices doing in some of these cases is that they have chosen to give an argument and it is not in any way a full account of the various cap -- barry's practices throughout the world with respect to their loss. -- the various practices throughout the world with respect to their laws. one of the things i think is very unique and worth cherishing is that we are in many ways a much freer nation than many countries around the world. i think there are many hazards involved in looking at foreign lot as guidance as how we interpret our own principles. -- foreign long as guidance as to how we interpret our own principles. -- bordelli w fahrenkopflaw as s

to how we interpret our own principles. there is a very important difference, senator, and one that i take very seriously between looking for guidance or ideas versus looking for authority. and authority is the basis on which cases are decided, not ideas or other forms of guidance. >> thank you very much. i went way over. i apologize. >> senator kyl, you are next. >> thank you very much. just on that last point, you distinguish between authority and ideas. the -- the role of the judges to decide the case in applying the authorities to the facts of the case. what is the role of ideas that would warrant a citation to foreign authorities? >> the senator, i think that --

>> excuse me, if i can give your exact quotation. the resistance to the practice is difficult for me to grass since the united states can hardly claim and not -- for me to grasp since the united states can proclaim a monopoly on why solutions to common problems. the crux of the idea that -- >> the idea that judges in their ordinary practice do cite a variety of sources to bolster their reasoning on a particular point, but i go back to what i was trying to say to senator coburn, which is that the role of the judge, to me at least, is to make determinative the applicable precedents and the written law, namely our law. >> then why you write that the resistance to this practice -- and you say "the use of foreign authority." that is what you are talking about you say the resistance to

this practice is difficult for me to grass since the united states can hardly claim a monopoly on why is this -- wise solutions to common problems on the world. there are two problems with this. the first is, fighting wise solutions as to -- as opposed to -- finding wise solutions as opposed to ending the law. and the second is, using foreign governments and solutions, except in treaties and the like. >> i did not mean in policy solutions. i meant the way that judges have to articulate a legal rule in deciding cases. with respect to the use of foreign presidentprecedents, i y that the use of them can in no way be determinative. in reviewing supreme court cases that have actually implemented

this process -- this practice, i think it shows quite clearly that the mention of foreign citations in those cases, to my reading of these, it is not doing any legal work in the analysis. >> if i can respectfully disagree with you. it is used in at least one instance to bolster -- in one instance that i can think of to bolster the judge's opinion. we will talk more about this, this idea of authority sources ideas. i would also like to put into the record events memo national review online wednesday, march 24 piece that response to the mark starr letter that i think senator leahy put in the record, in any event, that someone did. and professor leeland, also to follow up on something one of my

colleagues to talk to about -- one of my colleagues talked to you about. to me, this is reminiscent of senator kennedy posing quite unfair characterization of judge bork's vision of america and famous speech that he made. do you really believe that what you spoke is justice alito's vision of america? " senator, i think the phrase -- >> senator, i think that phrase is perhaps unnecessarily fiery language to make a simple point. i was trying to give examples -- >> so, you do not really believe it represents his vision of america. >> i do not think that it represents his vision of america that he would implement as policy, the practices described in that paragraph. it was only meant to say that as a judge, he believed those

practices were permissible in america. >> why did you not say it that way then? this calls into question your judicial temperament. that is a key consideration for members of this committee. that is not tempered language. you would acknowledge that, i gather. would you a knowledge that is not tempered language? >> perhaps not considered in isolation. but it comes after 14 pages of analysis of judge alito's opinions and i believe it was the penultimate paragraph. >> i see it as vicious and very racially charged, very in temperature -- barry in temperate and, to me, it calls into question -- if very intemperate, and to me, it calls into question your ability to deal in a fair and judicious way.

>> thank you, senator. senator cornyn, your next. before you go, i would like to abolish the presence of representative bobby scott -- i would like to acknowledge a depressants of representative bobby scott. -- acknowledge the presence of representative bobby scott. >> welcome. i do not think there is any doubt in my mind that you are an american success story as the son of immigrants and someone who has taken advantage of the opportunities that unfortunately, we all have here in america -- that fortunately, we all have here in america to get to the very top of the legal profession. in your case, the question i have is, is this the right job for you? it is not just a question of brilliance. it is not just a matter of your academic skill. it really is, is this the right job for you? i know you and senator hatch talked about the role of a a a

law professor relative to that of the -- of a judge -- the role of a law professor relative to that of a judge. let me go to some of my concerns. they may seem relatively mundane, but i think they are important. i note that you say you have not tried any cases in judgment or final decision. >> that is correct. >> having been a state court judge myself for 13 years, i am really very troubled by the fact that senator sessions documented in his questions that the lack of attention and diligence and, frankly, sloppiness in your response to this committee's questionnaire -- there were four occasions when you supplemented your responses not because you discovered they were in complete, but because committee members or staff went on google and found speeches, documents,

and press releases that you had previously disclosed. from my experience as a former trial judge, i will tell you if a lawyer came into my courtroom and failed to respond completely and accurately to a request from the other side for information and had to be called to task for different times the -- four different times before they got the complete and honest answer, that order will -- would find himself in contempt of court, -- that lawyer would find himself in contempt of court, or worse. i do not know if it is your lack of experience in a courtroom, what is, but can you offer me any comfort at all that this is not just an act of contempt but there is some other explanation? >> certainly, senator. i want to express again the fullest commitment that i

possibly can to providing this committee with any information that it wants or needs in $% candidacy for the bench. >> have you actually apologized? >> i have, senator. in my transmittal letter of the april 5lq express an apology 'm happy to reiterate it here. i'm very sorry for the omissions in the original questionnaire. i would simply say that the lion's share of items that i submitted in a supplement or not items brought to my attention by others, but items that upon more diligent searching i was able to provide to the committee, including all of the various instances in which i moderated a panel or accepted an award, or introduce a speaker or spoke at a brown bag. i tried my best to comb through the internet sites and all the

places that one could look for such things. i understand committees frustration with my handling of the questionnaire. i would have done things differently if i had the opportunity. >> can you assure us that you have made a complete and accurate response to the committee's questionnaire at this point, will there be other items that we will discover that have not been revealed? >> in the revised submission of april 5, i detail in the beginning of the answer all the search is the idea -- that i conducted. and if the committee or any member would desire that i do any more searching, i would be happy to do that with dispassion and turn over any other material i may find. >> let me turn over to you and -- to part of your response earlier in response to senator kyle posing questions. you characterized some of your criticism of justice alito as not tracking the park -- proper

balance between governmental rights and power. i would like to ask you in a straightforward way, what you think the 10th amendment of the constitution means and how should it be applied? it read, the powers not delegated by the constitution nor prohibited to the states are reserves to the states respectively or the people. do you recognize any limit on federal power to do whatever congress decides it wants to do, or do you think that is -- in other words, do you think the 10th amendment is a dead letter? >> absolutely not. the supreme court has made amply clear thatçr the 10th amendment stands for the federal principle of federalism that and use our structure of government. i respect those principles and would apply them faithfully. >> and yet you criticize justice rehnquist's decision in the lopez case, which was the application of that same doctrine of federalism.

is that correct? >> i expressed concerns about that decision, yes. >> and i would tell you that the american people -- i hear from my constituents in texas and people all across the country. their concern about the aggressive growth of the federal government and the intrusion of the federal government in their lives. that is why at least 16 attorney-general have filed suit challenging, for example, the individual mandate and the health care reform bill as an unprecedented expansion of federal power into their lives. i'm not going to ask you for a legal opinion about that since it may come before you if you are confirmed, but derecognize our government is not a national government, but a federal government and that is individuals and states that preserve significant power to make decisions affecting their lives that the federal

government cannot and should not touch? >> absolutely, senator. i think that from the founding of our country we have always had a constitution that defines the powers of the federal government as a set of enumerated powers only. in other words, the congress of the united states, the president, the political branches are not -- it is not a legislature of general powers that, as the states are. the states are general legislatures of powers. but the federal government is not. the whole notion of the enumeration presupposes the idea that is a government of limited powers. >> madam chairman, i know my time is up. i would like to knonote that i w that professor liu has been rated qualified and even though he has not tried any cases or

rendered direct verdict. i would note a few years ago when judge frank easterbrook was nominated to the seventh circuit, it appears a different standard was applied by the american bar association when they gave him a majority qualified, minority not qualified because they said he lacked experience as a practitioner. maybe the aba, when they come -- and i assume they will at some point come to testify -- can explain that point. it appears to be a double standard. >> thank you very much, senator cornyn. senator kauffman? >> welcome to the judiciary committee and the supreme court nomination process. [laughter] as you can see, there are some basic differences about the constitution on this committee. senator cornyn, why hold in very high regard, and center sessions and senator kyl -- who i hold in very high regard, and senator sessions and senator kyl, may have a different

opinion about the role of the government on which we battle at every single judiciary committee, but in a very collegial way. if i think we have all agreed to disagree on some of these issues. you clerked both in the district of columbia court of appeals and the supreme court. can you tell me what you learned about role and function of appellate judges during your experience? >> certainly, thank you, senator kauffman. i have the enormous privilege to clerk for two outstanding judges. one of the things i learned as a law clerk on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit is applicable to the point that senator cornyn raised. it is true i have not tried cases to verdict, and i would not claim expertise in that way. but one of the things that the judge for whom i clerked routinely did was he instilled

in his law clerks and appreciation for the role of the district judge, and the role of the district judge in understanding how litigants' bring cases and how cases get framed, and thus, in virtually all the cases i can remember he always sent us down to the first floor of the courthouse to go read the record of what happened in the court below. and those determinations and that record was into an amount of difference because a judge had already -- was due and amount of deference because a judge had already rendered a verdict ones. although we have a system of hierarchy in our courts, all of the members of the courts serve as article 3 appointees, in some sense, azko as co-equals and i

would pay very careful attention to the standards of review that apply to the case at hand because many of those standards of review caution against making new determinations or as if they were riding on its banks -- blank slate when, in fact -- riding on a blank slate, when, in fact, there has been an opinion rendered. >> your opinions do not matter that much if you're a court of appeals judge. >> not at all, the senator. on many issues, virtually everything that comes to the door, it has around a set of applicable precedents there really is no room in cases that come up for judges to create a new theory or doctrine. they are applying the law as it has been interrupted by the supreme court and has been written by congress in the cases of statutes. >> you do not have real

flexibility in terms of personal beliefs. >> personal beliefs, i believe, never have a role in the act of judging. gregg's in your experience and education, what you think -- >> in your experience and education, what you think came out of that that will serve you on the supreme court? >> i have the opportunity to work and serve with extremely talented leaders in that department. i think what it gave me is some perspective on how agencies make decisions, and to the extent that the courts of appeals do hear cases that concern administrative law, i think it does help to have some appreciation of the way regulatory decision making and other forms of guidance get made in federal agencies. >> and how about your experience in private practice? >> i feel enormously grateful that i have the time that i had at the law firm, a collection of outstanding an extremely talented saand smart lawyers who

showed me in many ways how businesses approach problems and how low role of a lawyer is absolute loyalty to his or her client. and the vigorous bazell c4 the client's interest. i think i learned in respect -- vigorous thezealousy for the client's interests. i think i learned in respect. i also learned how to build a time. >> i want to thank you for your public service. this is difficult, but the fact that you are willing to do it and the fact that others are willing to do it makes this country function. and i think everyone here knows were willing to -- willing to make the sacrifices that you have, and even more important,

your wife is willing to make the sacrifices that she has to. i want to thank you for your service your country. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator kauffman. because of the importance of this nominee, we will certainly have a second round. i would like to indicate my intent would be to go to 12:30 p.m. take a half-hour break and reconvene at 1:00 p.m. we have before additional nominees to hear. -- four additional nominees to hear. i know this is a long wait for you, but i think is important for members to have the opportunity for asking professor liu all the questions that they have. i must apologize to you, but it is the way of the senate. if there is no objection, we will proceed with a half-hour break in about 45 minutes.

and then begin again. >> thank you, your honor, for that. i think the nominee raises a lot of important for the -- philosophical questions about the law and constitution. we do have a number of questions. i thank you for the courtesy of allowing sufficient time. >> thank you very much. to begin the second round, i would like to say a couple of things. i really think that there is a double standard being applied here. i would like to take a look at just a few of president bush's nominees. let me begin with the chief justice. chief justice roberts fail to provide documentation for over 75% of the speeches and remarks listed in his questionnaire. not a single republican objected when the committee received 15,000 supplemental documents just four days before his

confirmation hearings were scheduled to begin. in fact, both chief justice roberts and justice alito supplemented their questionnaire several times after returning them, including with 75,000, and 36,000 pages of documents respectively. judge -- michael mcconnell has been covered, appointed to the 10th circuit. the constitutional law professor from 1985 to 2001. he did not list a single speech or talk on constitutional law or legal policy. he was confirmed. judge jeffrey sutton, appointed by the president to the sixth circuit, submitted a questionnaire that simply stated i have given numerous speeches to local bar associations, ohio judges, through the ohio judicial college, the federalist society, and continuing legal

education seminars regarding the ohio state supreme court and the ohio -- the united states supreme court and the ohio supreme court. he was confirmed. george brett cavanaugh, as has been stated, appointed by -- a judge brian cavanagh, as has been city, appointed by president bush to the d.c. circuit, said, i have given remarks on occasions, etc.. he was concerned. the judge katherine hay is appointed by president bush to the fifth circuit -- s. fifth circuit, submitted a questionnaire that said i have been to dozens, maybe hundreds of events where each candidate is asked to introduce his or herself. i have no way to track accurately the dates and locations. she was confirmed. judge diana sites, appointed by president bush to the second circuit, submitted a questionnaire along the same lines. same thing for judge ken jordan

to the third circuit. i think this -- and i must say, it is remarkably unfair. we have heard a nominee clearly state that he overlooked some things, clearly state that he is prepared to do anything he can to see that the committee is fully informed of his writings. i do not know what more in nominee can do. -- a nominee can do. to rise this to the level that he should be denied confirmation, and this being one of the major reasons, seems very unfair to me. i would like to ask one question on the commerce clause, however. in recent years, the commerce clause, as we all know, it's a very important clause of the constitution which essentially allows the congress to legislate in a number of different areas as long as they

relate to interstate commerce. in recent years, the supreme court has used in much more constraining view of the commerce clause. to strike laws such as the gun free laschools act of 1995 and e violence of women act of 1994. what is your understanding of the scope of congressional power under article one of the constitution, particularly the commerce clause? >> senator, in those two cases, as well as other cases that have followed on, in particular, i'm thinking of the medicinal marijuana case, the gonzález vs reich case. the court has the hoarticulateda doctor and the business is there are three ways that congress can

-- articulate a document that says that there are three ways that congress can legislate. it is senseless as the congress can legislate on matters that have an effect upon congress. a lot of it has turned on what is a constitutional effect. in the gun free zone case and the violence of women case, which no both are important to you, senator, the court said that the regulated activity has to be economic in nature, but stops short of saying it is an absolute requirement before the substantial effects and analysis can get going because in the medicinal marijuana case just a few years after words the court said, well, we have to look at the activity as a class of activities, not just the individual instance of an individual possessing a gun, or in the case of the marijuana case, the individual desire in the medicinal marijuana.

rather, we have to look at it as a class. i think that is where the state of the lot is right now, that the court has put a focus on the economic nature of the activity, but has instructed the lower courts to look at that issue not simply as an individual instance, but as a class. that is a doctrine as i understand it, and i will faithfully applied that as a judge. thank you very much. my time is up. senator sessions? >> your article that i quoted earlier, rethinking constitutional welfare rights, is a troubling document to me. you say that your thesis is that the legitimacy of judicial recognition of welfare rights depends on socially situated modes of reasoning that appeal not to transcend -- appear not to trends and moral ideals -- that appear not to transcend moral ideals, but to the meaning

of social goods in our society. i presume that as a stand-up you think judges should apply -- a stand that you think judges should apply. you think that we should move to culturally and historically contingent means of social goods in our own society? what kind of legal standard is that? doesn't that allowed a judge to do anything they want to do? >> senator sessions, the supreme court has, i think, pretty clearly said that judges cannot create classification. >> wait, let me just say -- i am going to allow him to answer, but i just want to say we do have a time problem and on asking a specific question. if you can do the best you can

to be sustained, i would appreciate it. >> certainly, senator. i simply mention what this said because in the article i expressed agreement with what the supreme court has said on this. in the article i say very clearly that the judges have no role in inventing welfare rights out of whole cloth and doing it on their own. instead, i think the passages that you are reading are perhaps overly academic language for a simple point, which is that if there are going to be welfare rights in this society, they must come from the legislature. they must come from congress. and i use the term "legislative supremacy" to capture that idea. >> can i ask, you say, " justifiable welfare rights for contingent character. are you talking about a judge's welfare rights? >> the role that the judge lays

out is only the role that the supreme court's own president has held up in the past -- precedents have upheld in the past. there are various determinations and processes and the jordan -- and the court has seen them as just as the bowl -- justic eable arguments. i believe i used the term "no role for courts federal industry legislative judgments of that sort." and i used the example of congress's 1996 welfare law that ended in thailand. i said that the courts have no role at all in questioning -- in ending entitlements. i said that the courts have no role at all in questioning that. >> you do say there is a danger in taking over the legislative

process, but you say it can be avoided when "courts employ constitutional doctrine in a biological process with the legislature to ensure the scope of welfare provision democratically reflects our social understanding." that seems to mean that you are saying a judge has a right to use the power of the court, a lifetime appointment, to ensure that welfare -- welfare provisions democratically reflects our social understanding. to me, that is an end -- and unintelligible standard, and you are giving virtually unlimited power of courts to review welfare or health care type legislation. >> senator, i think that, once again, if i can try to in some sense cut through the academic jargon they'rethere --

>> on the point, i agree. >> [laughter] thank you. i was a deterrent to say that the way that the court has in the fast approaching -- i was simply trying to say that the with the court has approached past -- one thing to notice that the -- this area of doctor has not in some sense spiral out of control. in fact, it is a very limited role, and that is the only role i envisioned in the paper. >> in your statement, it was not originally produced, but later produced, commenting on your book "keeping faith with the constitution" you define what fidelity to the constitution is. you express what i believe, which is davon this is what is followed even if you do not like

it -- faithfulness is what is followed even if you do not like it. bayh you save up the constitution -- but you say even when the constitution is adapted to the challenges and conditions of our society in every single generation. it seems to me, you are saying that a judge can ignore the proper way to amend the constitution and adapt not only its principles, but its text to meet whatever challenged the divine at a given time. correct me if i am wrong. greg senator, that is not what i believe. -- >>, senator, that is not what i believe. if i may, i think the interpretation of the constitution always has to be on the basis of legal principle and not on the basis of what the majority of society thinks or what the judge in question things. and across any generation, in any generation, the

interpretation of the constitution has to be guided by not what makes people happy. rather, but the faithful application of the text, the underlying principles and precedents that have occurred. . .

>> i was attacked as being anti- italian. when my grandparents emigrated to the united states in vermont from italy, with my italian mother and her siblings growing up, knowing how much i respect my uncles and aunts and cousins

in italy and visit them often -- i remember sitting on my italian grandparents knees and speaking of italian with them. i think it is kind of a stretch. sort of the same stretch that you heard when i opposed the nomination and senator kennedy, senator biden, senator durbin and i were called anti-catholic. i remember talking to my pastor the next day. he said "where does this sort of thing to come from?" i would hope we could talk about a lot and not things that belong to another time, an unhappy time in our country. we have heard you criticized

that you have not had a lot of courtroom experience. i cannot recall a single republican saying a thing when judge kimberly and the more was nominated by president george h. w. bush for the federal circuit. she had had years as a federal clerk. no one felt this disqualify her. or, when judge j. harvey wilkinson was nominated by president reagan to the fourth circuit. he had had one year as a clerk, five years as they newspaper editor, two years in the government, five years in academia. he was confirmed. judge frank westbrook, nominated at the age of 36, he spent one

year as a clerk, five years in the government, seven years in academia. he was confirmed. let's talk about reality. let's leave these straw men complaints out of it. we have some many people sitting on our courts of appeals, nominated by a republican president, supported by both republicans and democrats who do not begin to have the kind of background that you do, nor began to have the kind of bipartisan support that you have. i think we should not forget that. the american bar association, the standing committee of federal judiciary, found you unanimously well qualified.

that is the highest possible rating. strong support of both your home state senators. conservatives have commented that your qualifications are unassailable. tell us the difference between the role you have to play as a judge and any difficulty adjusting to a new role as a judge. >> system, mr. chairman. the role of the judge -- certainly, mr. chairman. the role of the judge is to be an arbitrator of the cases that come to him or her. the way that that process works is through absolute fidelity through the applicable precedents and the language of

the law, statutes and regulations that are at issue in the case. academics, when they write, are not bound in the same way. the job of law scholars, when they write, largely, is too pro- criticize, invent, be created -- in other words, many of the qualities that are not the qualities that one expects the judicial process to possess. one thing that i would like to highlight, which i hope comes through upon a review of my record, is that there are some similarities between the legal scholarship and the process of judging, which is that i would hope the record shows an open mindedness and an ability to consider all points of guilt. a record, in respect -- of the review -- a reader, a respect

for the law and off forms that make for habits of mind of good listening, that i think, in other ways, could make a person a good judge kurt >. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator leahy. >> center cairo. -- csenator kyl. >> you are distinguishing between an area where a court can't breathe light -- breathed life into the eligibility of those rights. that is what you described in the substance of what you wrote it at me ask you if you personally, personally believe that the duty of government cannot be reduced to simply providing the basic necessities

of life. the main pillars of the agenda would include expanded health insurance, child care, transportation subsidies, and a robust earned income tax credit, and in fairness, that is exactly what you wrote. that is a direct quotation. also, that we should be thoughtful, not bashful in forcing political solidarity. do you personally believe the statements. >> is that from my article, or which text is that from? >> i am sir. we were quoting from the article. it is the international citizenship from the yao journal in 2006. -- from the yale journal in 2006. >> i stand by my writings. whatever views i have expressed about those matters, however, i

would set aside absolutely in my role as a judge. quite frankly, i did not see the role of the judge been involved. >> i appreciate that you said that. the problem is that colleagues have talked about the need to get judicial nominees, and grant that this was in the context of the supreme court nominees, who would have certain agendas that i did not necessarily share. one of the things that have concerned about an activist judge is whether or not you approach deciding cases with those agendas in mind or you lay them aside. you have expressed, and i did quote accurately from that article, i perceive these to be the -- these to your personal opinions. i also perceive your view of a lot to be that we should find ways to accommodate those opinions, albeit, you do say

once the legislature has acted. i will quote directly how you state that. this is an -- on how how welfare rights might be recognized to constitutional to vacation in a democratic society. >> wants a welfare progra"once m this created, it should be reassessed to satisfy needs of citizenship. you should do that by and delicate in social eligible requirements or strengthening procedural withdraw benefits." that is what you said earlier. that seems to me to be an agenda. you bring an agenda to the court. you have written about how that agenda can be accomplished

through the judicial process, not the legislative process. you say "the constitutional guarantee of national citizenship has never realize its potential to be a generative source of substantive rights." you talk about how it was neutered by previous court decisions. i view this as you having these views, their very liberal views, you believe that once the legislature has opened the door, courts can be used to expand those rights in what you would consider to be an appropriate way. >> i guess i would say that those are my views. they are accurately reflected in the passages you spoke. i guess i would characterize them, not as an agenda, but rather as a my endorsement of precedents of the court that have done precisely those

things. as a lower-court judge, i would follow certainly, those precedents and any precedents. >> i recognize what you're saying is that when the legislature has acted, there is some precedential ability of courts to them, either through restricting qualifications, for example, of expanding those rights. it is very clear from what you have said, not that these are just examples you picked out of thin air, but rather, this is your personal view of what the court should try to do. am i wrong? >> i am not sure i would say that these are things the court should try to do. i think a court would have to simply follow with the supreme court has instructed the courts to do on particular issues. effected put the passages you read in further cutbacks, i would say that my riding in this

area and the -- if i could put the passage as you read in further context, i would say that most of my riding in this area -- right team in this area has been directed at policy- makers and legislatures, not act -- not at judges. most of what i have written is directed at legislatures because i come at this from my perspective of judicial restraint in this area. i hope those articles convey the understanding how but how difficult it is for courts to get involved. we have historical lessons to learn. that is why i think most of my scholarly work has actually been directed at policymaker, not at the urging courts to do more. >> could you see why the

passages from this particular article raised a doubt that i have expressed to you? >> i certainly do. >> that completes our second round. senator coryn has indicated that he will arrive in five minutes. i'll tell you what we will do if that is our right, we will begin a third round and then i will give him some additional time he comes in. we will just go for another 15 minutes and then recess. are you bearing up? >> i am doing just fine. you have amazing cool. congratulations. >> in describing your approach to constitutional fidelity, you have said that the practical consequences of legal rules matter. i happen to agree with this. for example, in a case where a

court interpreted title 7 to require a woman to pay -- or excuse me, to file a pay discrimination case within a 180 days of yuan her employer first paid her a less than her male counterpart, even if she had no way of knowing at that time that she was being paid less. congress has had to pass a new law to overrule that decision and communicate to the court that title 7 was not intended to have this resolved. i think it was the first bill signed by president obama. here is the question -- when do you believe it is appropriate for a judge to consider the practical consequences of legal rules? >> well, i think that is one of the aspects of decision-making

that i think properly inform the consideration of most cases that can't -- that come before the court. lot defects people's lives. it is not a bunch of words on paper. it is not a bunch of cases in the books. these are real things that affect people's lives. decisions made by a judge should not be based on favoritism toward effecting a person puts the life one way or the other. -- purse person's life one way or the other. i do not think anyone can grasp the magnitude without understanding how that plays out in people's mines. >> just so people now, there was no way she could of known -- she did not find out until years later what happened.

the question was did she have redress. the cold rolled now. -- a court ruled know. -- no. the supreme court stated conclusively that state universities have a compelling industry -- interest in attending the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. that case and others have also made clear the efforts to maintain diversity must be closely tailored to the true educational benefits and not a racial quota. now, in blog entries you have been accused of favoring racial quotas. i want to ask you plainly, do you favor racial quotas and the believe that our permissible? >> i absolutely do not support

racial quotas. i believe they're unconstitutional. >> will you follow supreme court law as articulated that laid out the court's guideline for when and how it is permissible for a university to seek to retain a river student body? >> i think my writings head written approval plea of the standards set forth in those cases -- approvingly of the standards set forth in the case. >> the question that senator kyl asked you -- let me ask this question and another way, in a highly theoretical particle, you critique two other scholars notion of constitutional welfare rights, and put forth the theory

of your own, in which courts engaged in de "dialectical engagement with the public represent." i would like to hear you explain this in plain english. you are obviously very smart. you have been gifted with a great mind. how much is genetic and how much is learned, i do not know. you have an unusual mind. you're also, -- you are also very young. sometimes, one can get so fancied in the riding, that the plain-spoken person attributes a lot of things to it that may not be there. could you take a crack at what the dialectical process of engagement with the political process and the public actually means? >> certainly.

let me preface my answer by saying that if i was ever conferred as a judge, i would not write opinions that sound like that. [applause] [laughter] -- [laughter] all i mean to say in that article is that it is a characterization of the process in which the courts have gone back and forth with the exercise of a legislative power to define the scope of welfare rights. in that process, occasionally, " scott occasionally way yuan -- courts occasionally way in. what are our yuan that peace retains the final word with the -- what i wrote in that piece retains the final word belonging

to the legislature. i hope that what comes through in the article is a posture of judicial deference because what i am arguing against in the first half of the article is a strain of thinking that this popular in the 1960's and 1970's that judges should wholesale invent these things and come up with their own views of what the constitution requires. high wholesale reject that point of view. that is what the first half of the article is devoted to, a rejection of that point of view. >> could i defer to senator cornyn. >> effective just excuse myself right now -- if i could just excuse myself right now. >> sure.

let me give you your second round now, so that you would that have missed it. >> thank you, madam chairman. i assume you are familiar with the work of judge stephen reinhardt on the ninth circuit. >> i would not say i am familiar with his work, but i know a little bit about him and his reputation. >> did you recall having disagreed with a decision by judge reinhardt? >> center, i cannot even think of an opinion from him off of the top of my head. >> fair enough. is your theory of constitutional fidelity, substantively different than the living constitutional view endorsed by other levels dollars? >> i think the term living constitution has been used by all lot of people to mean a lot

of things. i do not like the term. in the book, we reject the term. it suggests that the constitution is a malleable document that can be read to have words in that that really are not in it. we take the position that the constitution is a written text for a special reason. the text was meant to be the enduring thing that judges would have to apply in deciding cases and not something that is outside of the text, and not something they would invent on the fly. >> on the issue of foreign law, a professor who is now at the state department has described the debate between a transnational lists and nationalists when it comes to the application of foreign law and its use, i believe he thinks

that transnationalists have a critical role to play, yuan nationalists' claim that only the political branches are authorized to domesticate the legal norms. did you agree with this distinction, and if you do, which are you, a transnational ist or a nationalist? >> frankly, i'm not familiar with this debate in the law. i would say that i think in the decision of what the american -- of the meaning of the american statutes are and the meaning of the american constitution, american presidents and american law are the things that control. >> changing subject again. in your article, "rethinking

constitutional welfare rights" you write that legislation might give rise to a constitutional well fell right if it has sufficient condition and durability reflecting the outcome of vigorous public contestation and the considered judgment of a highly engaged citizenry. i do not know if that would pass the standard for plain speaking. reflecting on the recent debate on health care reform, which passed after the vigorous public contestation, does that give rise to passing a law like that, i give rise to new constitutional rights? >> that is a good question. i do not have a view on that, because like many americans, i have not actually read the health-care legislation beyond

that, -- legislation. beyond that, the durability of it is something that is remain ing to be seen because i understand it is being challenged in the courts. members of congress may wish to revisit elements of it in the future. i think my initial take on your question, although i have not thought about it very much is that it is too early to tell. >> so, you would add least hold out the possibility that an act of congress could confer welfare rights or benefits that would somehow become constitutional in nature, which then could not be repealed by a subsequent conference. >> it could always be repealed. my theory does not suggest that it cannot be repealed. the term "constitutional" as i have used it is perhaps

misleading. it only means to say that according to the court's precedents, the court has recognized in the application of, say people to process principle, a recognition of the rights created by congress. in making decisions, it has given them new weight in the consideration of, say, eligibility restrictions or termination policies. those are the cases i have endorsed in that article as confirming that judicially cognizable rights. that is the only sense in which i mean those terms. >> in that same article, you cite the supreme court decision of 1973 it is an example of how a court may recognize a welfare

right. you called it a plausibly appropriate case. could you list exceptional cases in which it would be appropriate for the court to engage in substantive policy judgments and would you feel authorized to engage in such? >> i do not think i would feel authorized. i think it the loss of democratic process. in the article, if i recall correctly, i was critical of the marie decision because it went further in that regard then my theory would permit. >> thank you, professor. >> the hour of 12:30 has arrived. i would like to place some letters of support in the record, so ordered. we will take a one half hour break. when we come back, intercessions

will lead off. please get some food and some drink and, well prepared. >> thank you. d committee will reconvene at 1:00 p.m.. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the senate huge share committee is wrapping up the first part of this hearing with some good when lou who is he so should 18 of the university of california berkeley law school. there will come back with a district judge nominees shortly after 1:00 eastern. we have opened up our phone lines. let's get to those phone calls in just a minute about what you saw today in those hearings and what might be ahead in the supreme court nominations peg the nominee is who president obama will suggest -- will nominate shortly.

>> if you have reached c-span and have gotten others can -- and have gotten in and the last 30 days, give others a chance to get in. the hearing today, with professor good one -- goodwin liu nominated for the ninth court of appeals. we understand the judiciary committee will come in with the rest of the nominees just after 1:00 p.m. eastern. here is patrick, republican. caller: i have been considered a conservative democrat. i changed into a republican about four years ago. i felt that the party that used to be democrats has left knee. i have not left them. i see what is going on all over the government, with too much control by one party is not

right. i see we have gone so far to the left that we are going bankrupt. i do not think this judiciary will be any good for the courts. that is my opinion. i think the party overall has not left knee, i have left them. >host: terry. caller: i like this judicial nominee. i hope he gets through. he is going to be down to earth. his plan to follow the law. i see the republicans plotting to vote him down. they're going to put a racial tinge to it. you can't see the writing on the wall. host: this is rich. caller: i like this candidate, too. i think he is a fine human being. i think he shows good character.

i wish i could say the same about the republican whip who reminds me very much of mccarthy. he is basically social pact. i cannot stand him. it makes me sick to see people acting like him. host: way of looking at dell just before the hearing got -- at video just before the hearing got under way. there you see the nominee goodwin liu who was granted about two hours today. the associated press, reporting on this hearing, says the hearing quickly erupted into partisan bickering today in a likely test of president barack obama's ability to win confirmation for a liberal court pick. next up is ky. kathy is our republican line. make sure you knew your television or radio.

caller: i am watching c-span right now. i believe this is a good way to balance of both sides, even dell it is more on the left -- even so it is more on the left side. i think it is good to have ways of approaching a balanced way. if the process -- at think the process is more fair now. host: photographers with senator feinstein from earlier today we are asking you about today's hearing. binghamton, new york, and on our democrats line. caller: i am happy that a young, asian fellow is being considered for the post. i would have to commend barack obama for the way he includes everyone and i think it was a

nice choice to have goodwin liu been there. -- in there. host: thank you for your call. we're taking your calls. just a reminder, the u.s. house will come in for a short says an -- session at 1:00 p.m.. we'll go back to the judiciary committee. we are joined by susan crabtree, a senior editor at "the hill" newspaper. his writing and his article came under close scrutiny. what were they concerned about? guest: they were concerned about his interpretation of the constitution. this issue always comes up in any kind of judicial nominee flight, whether it be the -- fight, whether it be the supreme court, where the appeals court, which is one step below the supreme court, where he is going

to be serving if confirmed. that is why he is getting the kind of scrutiny. conservatives argue that the constitution should not be interpreted as society changes. they believe that the constitution is fixed and most judges should use it as the basis of the law, cannot go too far astray from that in their interpretation. that is what mainly in the questions focused on. host: several new stores have referred to today's here in at -- hearing as a practice run. did it feel like that? guest: it certainly did. even though it is a friday, and that means that most senators are not attending these hearings, there were a lot of republicans that showed up for this one. since may, the ranking member,

jeffrey sessions, they all were very harsh in their questioning. host: did you hear any issues raise by senators today that are also likely to be real points of contention in the summer to the supreme court nominee hearing? -- summer's supreme court nominee hearing? guest: that is a good question. i expect questions about how much a nominee is interpreted the constitution to always come up. the majority of the lead up to this hearing focused on the fact that goodwin liu had submitted additional material to the original senate questionnaire and they thought that there were omissions. these are things like speeches, different panels that he has sat

on, writing a book on the constitution, all of these things are something that senators and their staff scourer yuan lead up to figure out where this nominee -- scour in their lead up to figure out where this nominee stands. even though they are supposed to be non-partisan and weigh each individual case on its merits, a lot of times there are interpretations, and as we can tell there have been close decisions recently, the court is so closely divided that interpretation sentiment comes up. host: on professor liu's nomination, can you tell us how like how -- how soon the committee is likely to vote? it will be contentious.

i would expect it to take a number of weeks. host: susan crabtree, thank you for taking the time out with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will get back to your calls. if you missed the hearing, you can find it sharply in the c- span2 library. next up is georgia, pat, an independent. caller: i wanted to make it quick couple of points. on a trial experience, i am not sure that in that particular role it would be advantageous to have somebody that has trial experience. that is more of an academic. host: you think he is better served by being an academic rather than a trial judge?

caller: absolutely. he is interpreting the law not making a judgment. that is not to mention he is extreme intelligence. host: republican new-line -- republican line. caller: i did not think goodwin liu should be considered a republican. h., is he okay by your standards? caller: i think he is a good choice. he is apparently bright. i am a little bit disappointed in listening to senator kyl. there is no logic. he wants it one way and another. i think the republican party has gone too far to the right.

host: another view from tucson, ariz.. caller: they have to question thoroughly. they do not want to just anybody in there. i am disgusted with mr. leahy and the chairwoman. they are not questioning properly. this is an important decision. in the decisions made by his riding, he signed -- he sounds to me to be too liberal. host: dorothy, a democratic caller. caller: i believe there should be more diversity in the senate. there is always these old white men. when it comes for a nomination on the democratic side, the republicans want to attack. it always appears to be racial. this is an asian the on demand. they want to attack him.

for instance, the center asked him is this the position yuan -- the center asked him if this is the position he wants to be in. he should ask that question to him. there is the more diversity in the senate. we will never, ever have it. the white men have too much money. they could by the senate. host: there is the view from earlier today with reporters gathered around the witness table. a live look at the u.s. capitol. the house and senate are both out today. actually, the house will begin in about 20 minutes or so. it is a brief session with no legislative business. we will show that to be. a couple more minutes of your calls. greg, in pittsburgh. independence. caller: i am concerned with all of this party bickering.

a respected republican senators. i think they should be coming through professor liu's views to make sure that his views of entered and the constitution are sound. i think it does become such a bickering -- -- i think it has become such a bickering -- each issue turns into back and forth between republicans and democrats. it seems like half of the time is spent taking a tax at each other. i think we should focus on the candidates themselves. i also want to say that 9/11 was an inside job. host: your thoughts on the hearing with goodwin liu? caller: i am shocked about some of the comments made by republicans when they talk about legislating from the bench.

justice alito and justice roberts -- that is exactly what they did. something is wrong. host: a few more minutes of your calls. goodwin liu nominated for the ninth circuit court of appeals. we expect president obama before the summer to name his nominee for taken over the seat being vacated by john paul stevens. that will mean summer supreme court hearings. "sucking and post -- the huffington post" suggests that the current solicitor better is -- general is a lesbian, even though she is not. the human-rights campaign blasted the public discussion, and that it play out of the right wing playbook.

to new hampshire. an independent. welcome. caller: what and then press the brain prof. lowe has -- in pressing brain professor lou has. he keeps his cool well. center sessions -- senator sessions is becoming -- is coming off like a fool. thank you. host: thank you for all the calls. yao give you a chance to see this hearing later in our program scheduled. you can check the web site for details. in just a few minutes, the u.s. house will come in for a short pro-formal session. earlier today, president obama spoke at the white house conference on the america gret outdoors. we'll be to his comments and then to the house live, at 1:00 p.m..

>> ladies and gentlemen, to introduce the president, the chair on the council of environmental policy. [applause] >> thank you very much. it is a great privilege to work under the leadership of president barack obama who is a strong and steady guardian of the health and beauty of the natural places that span this great country, from the lush landscapes of hawaii to the public basketball courts of chicago, to the green expanse of

the white house lawn, the president is intimately familiar with the many faces of america's great outdoors. his personal connection and commitment to america's national heritage is clear in his the termination to instill in his two young daughters and appreciation of the country's diverse duties -- duty. he did it last summer when the first family spend their vacation amid the breathtaking majesty of grand canyon and yellowstone national park. to me, his commitment is clear in a remarkable legacy that he as already begun to establish. in signing the public lands management act of 2009, president obama insure the protect not -- a the protection of rivers and wilderness.

by working for a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill, he is laying a path to protect the health of our land and water for future generations of americans. like so many of you in this room today, he and his family are setting an example of conservation at home and through community service. for the 40th anniversary of earth day next week he has challenged americans to take action in their homes, communities, schools and businesses to improve their environment. at the white house, he and the first lady have planted an organic kitchen garden, sending an and not -- sending a message to americans about the value of all organic healthy food. president obama is a true champion of the mountains, streams, beaches, parks, wilderness and wide open spaces that along to all americans.

i am proud to serve as president and honor to present the vote -- presents him to you today. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you so much. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you, please, everybody have a seat. thank you. thank you. it is a great privilege to join for this conference on america's great outdoors. there are a number of people that i want to with knowledge here who have worked tirelessly

to work -- to move this agenda for. at the top of our list is our secretary of the interior, who i believe will be one of the best secretary of interior in our country's history. he is fully embraced this issue with the work he has done. thank you. [applause] >> all have been part of our dream team. they are consistently providing creative parodied -- ideas to make sure that we understand that conservation is not contrary to economic growth, but rather an integral part of economic growth could they have done a fabulous job on that. please give them a big round of applause. [applause] >> we have my outstanding know what administrator. we have the assistant secretary.

we have dr. dorothy rodham. in the audience, if i am not mistaken, we have some luminaries'. is governor bill richardson in the house? there he is, from new mexico. a great conservationist. [applause] he is a former secretary of the interior, bruce babbitt is here. [applause] >> one of the finest young mayors in the country, mayor cory booker. to all of the outstanding member [applause] as of congress -- [applause] >> and to all of the outstanding members of congress.

i am thankful that the first such conference was held over yuan century ago by one of my favorite presidents, and one of the greatest presidents, and certainly our greatest concentration presidents -- upon taking office, did their roosevelt, an avid bird watcher, a bear hunter, set out on a tour that would change his life and our life forever. he camped in a snow blizzard at yosemite. he stood on a cliff at the grand canyon. the ages have been at work on hand, he declared. man can only market from that sense of commitment sprang at five national parks, 18 national monuments, 51 federal bird reservations and 150 national

force. that meant the sprained an effort to save the great red words of california. -- redwoods of california. from that commitment sprang a breathtaking legacy of conservation that still enhances our lives. that legacy is an extraordinary achievement, and no matter how long i have the privilege of serving as president, i know i can never match it. i will probably never should a bear. -- shoot up there. -- a bear. [laughter] >> that is a fair bet. a fair guess. i do intend to enrich that legacy.

a philip abided to the land as the united states of america -- i feel invited by the land of united states of america. it is a recognition passed down from one generation to the next. few pursuits are more satisfying to the spirit then discovering the greatness of america's outdoors. when we see america's land, we understand what an incredible bounty we have been given. it is our obligation that the next generation enjoys the same county. that trend in net -- that recognition has been a touchstone of this let -- of this presidency thanks to a standing leadership from those fed had done of st. mary work. lacher, into law a public lands bill, the most significant in

decades that designated wilderness. and better protected, cherished places, we are taking on new approaches to our national forests to make sure they are not as providing timber, but water and jobs for rural communities. we are restoring our rivers and coasts. yes, we are working faithfully to carry on the legacy of theodore roosevelt in the 21st century. we also know that we must adapt our strategy is to meet the new challenges of our time. over the last century, our population grew from about 90 million, to 300 million people. as it did, we lost more of our landscape to development. meanwhile, a host of other factors come from a change in climate, to a new pollution,

have put a constraint on our land. but rising to meet these challenges is a task and an obligation, and it is one that governments can not and should not need along. there are roughly system hundred privately run land trust in this country that protected over 10 million acres through voluntary action. the national resource conservation service has predicted over 30 million acres, it is a service that is almost 75 years old together, we are conserve our working lands in a way that preserves the environment and protect the community. that is the collaborative. to at the heart of the america's great outdoor of initiative that we are much -- if this we are mounting today. in the months ahead, we will hold listening sessions across america.

we will meet with everybody from a lot of officials to recreation and conservation groups. their ideas will help us form a 21st century strategy for america's great outdoors, to better protect our landscapes and history for generations to come. understand that we're not talking about a big federal agenda. we're talking about how we could collect the best ideas on conservation, how we could pursue good ideas the local community's embrace and how we could be more responsible stewards of tax dollars to promote conservation. first, we will build on successful conservation efforts being spearheaded outside of washington by local and state governments. so that we can write a new chapter in the protection of rivers, wildlife habitat, historic sites, and great landscapes of our country. secondly, will help farmers, ranchers, property owners who

want to protect land for their children and grandchildren. third, will help families spend more time outdoors, building on what the first lady has done to the let's move a initiative, an encouraging people to get outside more often biking and hiking. third -- fourth, we want to foster a new community of urban parks so that children have a chance to experience places like millennium park in chicago. we are launching a strategy because it is the right thing to do. we must not mar the work of the ages, as tr said. it is how we will maintain our forests and rivers. and a time of great difficulty, when we are recovering from the worst recession in generation and waging two