It turns out that Ninth Circuit nominee Goodwin Liu’s massive fourth supplement to his Senate questionnaire response still leaves his submission incomplete.
Blogger Morgen of Verum Serum, taking a brief break yesterday evening from his family vacation, has already identified these additional seven omissions (or, in some instances perhaps, apparent omissions) from Liu’s supplemented response:
1. Oct. 9, 2009: Berkeley Homecoming Faculty Seminars: “The Changing Dynamics of the U.S. Supreme Court”
2. Sept. 15, 2009: Constitution Day Colloquium: “Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: The Constitution in Crisis Times”
3. July 23, 2007: “Your Call” radio interview on Supreme Court’s decision in Seattle schools case
4. April 5, 2008: Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal’s annual symposium: “Five Years Later: ‘No Child Left Behind’ in California?”
5. May 14, 2006: Oakland Law Day Rotary Club: “The Two Faces of Liberty”
6. April 7-8, 2006: American Constitution Society’s Access to Justice Symposium
7. Spring 2003: Harvard’s Young Faculty Leaders Forum: “No Child Left Behind: Educational Promise, Constitutional Peril”
I say “in some instances perhaps, apparent omissions” because it’s conceivable that Liu ended up not taking part in the events numbered 1, 2, 5, and 6. If that turns out to be the case, I will make that clear. [See 2nd update below.] (I will also, of course, correct any mistakes that I have inadvertently made in trying to piece together Liu’s mess.) By contrast, there’s after-the-fact evidence that Liu took part in the events numbered 3, 4, and 7.
Liu’s overall sloppiness in completing his Senate questionnaire shouldn’t obscure the disturbing and suspicious pattern that Liu’s most inexplicable omissions contain his most controversial and incendiary comments.
Update: It also turns out that the “Convenience List of New Materials” that Liu submitted yesterday and that purports to “contain all items in the revised Question 12 answer submitted [yesterday] that were not included in prior submissions” doesn’t do what it purports to do. I discovered this when I stated in the initial version of this post (which I corrected within a few minutes of posting) that “Liu has still not informed the Senate of the online video of his highly controversial comments on reparations for slavery.” [Correction: It turns out that Liu did provide a (non-working) link to online video.] Liu’s “Convenience List of New Materials” does not list the new link that he’s provided, but his “Revised Complete Response to Question 12” does. Needless to say, it’s not very convenient to have a “Convenience List of New Materials” that is inaccurate.
2nd Update (4/14): I’ve just learned that Liu has informed the Committee that event 1 refers to an event that took place on Oct. 10, 2009 that Liu listed on his fourth supplement; that he did not take part in event 2; that he did take part in event 5; and that his participation in event 6 was limited to a welcoming introduction.