Wouldn’t we be served best if all our judges were strictly impartial in ruling on the cases that come before them?
Don’t we want judges not only to be of good character and personal judgment, as well as learned in the law, but also to be unbiased as they deal with the facts and the law in their rulings?
Most people probably would agree to that standard. But unfortunately, it is all too obvious that some of our justices on the Supreme Court of the United States, and some of our other federal judges, do not meet the desired standard of impartiality. It is regrettably clear that some judges are liberals and some are conservatives, with their personal views affecting their rulings.
The subject of judicial partiality is in the news now because President Barack Obama unwisely nominated University of California at Berkeley law school professor Goodwin Liu to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco.
The nominee, a Georgia native, is clearly intelligent and accomplished — but he is unabashedly liberal, as his record shows. He seems to have no qualms about liberal judges injecting their personal views into cases and relying on foreign law to help decide domestic cases.
It is good, therefore, that the Senate has rejected Liu’s nomination. We do not need another liberal judicial activist on a federal court.
The American people ought to be able to have confidence that any federal court nominee will be impartial.