Some time yesterday, Jonas Lerman of SupportGoodwinLiu.com posted an entry titled “Another Whelan Error” that tried to take me to task for three supposed errors in my posts on Goodwin Liu. In the course of preparing a response to Lerman’s post, I discovered that his post (which had been at this link) had suddenly vanished without a trace from his website. That hasn’t stopped Jonathan Singer of ConfirmGoodwinLiu.com from posting an unintelligible excerpt of Lerman’s post and from “highly recommend[ing] reading the post in full, because it has a detailed, point-by-point analysis backing up [Lerman’s] conclusions.”

I sure hope that Lerman re-publishes his post, for it’s a doozy. Fortunately, I preserved a copy of it on my Blackberry. Lerman’s primary claim is that Liu in his writings has never called for overturning of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Milliken, Rodriguez, and Adarand. I’ll happily accept Lerman’s word on that. For what Lerman imagines to be a defense of Liu is in fact an indictment.

It’s precisely because Liu did call for the overruling of Milliken, Rodriguez, and Adarand—for them to “be swept into the dustbin of history”— in his comments on a showcase panel on “The Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education” at the American Constitution Society’s 2004 national convention that his comments are so noteworthy. And it’s in part because he inexplicably failed to disclose his participation on this panel that reasonable suspicions have arisen that he was trying to hide some of the most controversial aspects of his record. In other words, if Liu’s comments on overruling Milliken, Rodriguez, and Adarand were merely redundant of his writings (or of other material in his record), then his comments on the 2004 showcase panel, and his failure to disclose that panel, would be harmless error. But it’s Lerman himself who insists that they’re not redundant.

My guess is that Lerman pulled his post once his huge gaffe was called to his attention. But I invite him or Singer to repost it. (If and when they do, I’ll be happy to explain why Lerman’s two other claims of supposed errors are defective.)

Meanwhile, I’ll note that Singer repeats his canard that there’s some sort of inconsistency between my position on Liu’s omissions and my defense of Justice Alito against a reckless accusation that Senator Schumer made. Apart from the fact that Singer links to only one of my four posts on the Alito matter, he also doesn’t link to my “Why Goodwin Liu’s Omissions Matter,” which ought to make clear that there’s no inconsistency (or at least ought to compel Singer to take account of my arguments and try to explain why he thinks there is). He also continues to cite Richard Painter’s ill-informed remarks on Liu’s omissions, without informing his readers why I believe those remarks have no bearing on the issue at hand.

As regular readers know, my consistent practice is to link to the arguments that I’m disputing, to present them fairly (usually with key quotes), and to acknowledge and correct any mistakes I make (not to persist in making them, and certainly not to make them vanish). It’s too bad, but quite telling, that Liu’s defenders won’t do the same.

4/10 (10:15 p.m.) Update: I now see that Lerman has re-published his ridiculous post at this link. As promised (not that the attentive reader would need it), I’ll refute his other two defective claims soon (when I’m back in the office with easy access to my Liu files—which may be not until Wednesday—and when the more pressing matter of the Supreme Court vacancy permits).