Research

As we detailed yesterday, Obama’s 9^th Circuit nominee Goodwin Liu omitted some 117 documents from a routine questionnaire that all nominees are required to fill out. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) made a reasonable request for extra time to review such a large number of undisclosed documents. Yet, today Roll Call reports that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy will not delay the hearing:

In a sternly worded letter Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) denied a Republican request to postpone Liu’s hearing to review the undisclosed information ... “I am disappointed that, instead, we have seen the same delays and obstructionist approach toward these nominees on the Senate floor extend to the Committee’s consideration,” Leahy wrote.

Are we to believe that Liu just happened to forget these documents, or are they so controversial that he purposely withheld them? The White House is responsible for properly vetting each of their Judicial and Executive branch nominees. And this isn’t the first time a White House nominee has omitted crucial information from the Senate Judiciary Committee: Sonia Sotomayor withheld hundreds of boxes of documents, and Eric Holder only recently turned over amicus briefs that were highly material to his nomination. So why does Leahy consider 117 documents so trifling as to press on with a hearing?

In brushing off Sen. Session’s minor request, Sen. Leahy said, “I see no reason to further delay this nominee’s opportunity to appear before the committee and respond to the questions its members may have.” But how can a member ask questions about documents they have no time to review their history?

Irrespective of the many controversial statements and writings that Liu has produced, serious questions remain whether he has the core competencies to be a judge. That 42 California District Attorneys have condemned him is evidence enough that Liu’s form of activism would hurt the court. With Liu’s integrity in question, Sen. Leahy is steamrolling the nomination hearing for no reason other than avoid the scrutiny that all nominees should be subject to.