Whatever Liu’s jurisprudential philosophy, three things virtually guaranteed controversy over his nomination:  (1) Liu is President Obama’s first nomination to the court; (2) the Ninth Circuit is a lightning rod for criticism from the right side of the political spectrum (more so, I think, than the Fourth Circuit is for the left side of the political spectrum), and (3) did I mention Liu’s a professor at Cal Berkeley?

H/T: How Appealing.

So, how does a truly ambitious litigant propel himself above his vexatious brethren? By carrying that same spirit to complaints of judicial misconduct, as in In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, case no. 08-10949 (Dec. 22, 2009). The Judicial Council panel refuses to overturn an order from Chief Judge Kozinski dismissing two judicial misconduct complaints against four district judges, including a complaint against the judge who designated the complainant a vexatious litigant. The conclusion of Judge Kozinski’s original order of dismissal provides the better synopsis:

Complainant has filed numerous misconduct complaints over the past fifteen years. Several previous complaints have been dismissed because complainant’s allegations were conclusory and related to the merits of an underlying decision. Complainant has also used abusive language in the current and past complaints. In my order dismissing his last misconduct complaint, I directed complainant’s attention to Misconduct Rule 1(g), which provides that a “complainant who files vexatious, repetitive, harassing, or frivolous complaints, or otherwise abuses the complaint procedure,” may be restricted from filing further complaints. See In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, No. 07-89137 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2008).

Complainant has now filed two more frivolous misconduct complaints against four judges, in addition to at least twelve other misconduct complaints over the past fifteen years. Complainant is therefore ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned by an order requiring him to obtain leave before filing any further misconduct complaints. See Judicial-Conduct Rule 10(a); In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 552 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2009). Complainant has thirty days from the filing of this order to file a response, which will be transmitted to the Judicial Council for its consideration.

Naturally, the complainant failed to comply with the order to show cause, and thus the panel not only declined to overturn the dismissal, but imposed a pre-filing order.