Let me repeat that the relevant question concerning Ninth Circuit nominee Goodwin Liu’s Senate questionnaire response is not whether he strictly complied with the demands of the questionnaire. What matters, rather, is that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he tried to hide some of the most controversial aspects of his record from the Senate.
Liu’s fourth supplement to his questionnaire response can’t possibly dispel these suspicions. But it’s nonetheless noteworthy that his supplement doesn’t do what it purports to do. As I noted yesterday, his supplemented response still has omissions. Plus (as I explained in an update to yesterday’s post), the “Convenience List of New Materials” that Liu says “contains all items in the revised Question 12 answer … that were not included in prior submissions” isn’t very convenient after all, as it doesn’t do what he says it does. So much for making it easier for Senate staffers to wade through his mess.
Blogger Morgen of Verum Serum, who deserves immense credit for discovering all of the Liu omissions that I’ve highlighted, calls to my attention two more omissions. Both, as it happens, involve material from websites that Liu, in his “Revised Complete Response to Question 12,” says that he specifically searched. (The same was true of three of the omissions that I highlighted in my post yesterday.)
One is an October 2006 UC Berkeley panel (with audio and video) on “The Legal Framework of Proposition 209.” (California’s Prop 209 prohibits state entities from “discriminat[ing] against, or grant[ing] preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”)
The second is a March 2006 radio interview on “The New Supreme Court.”
I haven’t had time to review the recordings.