Conservatives Set To Block Dawn Johnsen’s Nomination
Conservatives Set To Block Dawn Johnsen’s Nomination
Roll Call reports that conservatives look poised to successfully block the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the White House Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) declared that his hands were tied without the assistance of a few Republican votes:
“Right now we’re finding out when to do that,” Reid said, responding to a question about the status of Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen’s nomination to the Justice post. “We need a couple Republican votes until we can get to 60.”
It’s unclear why 60 votes are needed to confirm Johnsen, considering her predecessor, Jay Bybee — who went on to authorize illegal torture — won easy confirmation in 2001 through a simple voice vote. Bybee’s successor, Jack Goldsmith, was also approved by a voice vote. Steven Bradbury served for three years as an acting OLC head, and so did not have to come up for a vote. Having a full — and filibuster-proof — Senate vote on Johnsen would be an unusual break with recent precedent.
Senators opposing Johnsen include new Democrat Arlen Specter (PA), who announced his opposition to Johnsen on the day he decided to switch parties, though he has yet to explain why he opposes her. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has said he “is concerned about her outspoken pro-choice views on abortion.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) insists that Johnsen “has not demonstrated the seriousness and necessary resolve to address the national security challenges we face.”
Johnsen is eminently qualified to head the OLC. She has been an outspoken critic of Bush’s torture and eavesdropping programs, argues persuasively for accountability for wrongdoing, and has written passionately in support of checks and balances and against executive branch power grabs. She is a strong progressive candidate who could restore the tainted OLC to a place of legal professionalism and pride. And, like the majority of Americans, Johnsen thinks abortions should be safe and legal in most cases.
Specter and Nelson can find little in Johnsen’s sterling record to substantively critique, and Reid shouldn’t let them stand in the way. Indeed, their opposition to her breaks their track record for supporting previous OLC heads like Bybee. Remember, when Bush nominated Bybee for a federal judgeship, Specter, Nelson, Cornyn, and Reid all voted to confirm him.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oh…I see…torture ok…following rule of law not ok…
WTF?
May 13th, 2009 at 10:36 amAmazing that 51 is no longer considered a majority. I’ve heard of “New” Math and “Rove” math, but this must be “No” Math.
PEACE
May 13th, 2009 at 10:36 amIt’s unclear why 60 votes are needed to confirm Johnsen…
– - Dawn Johnsen’s confirmation is in question because of her time as a former counsel to NARAL. The GOP likes nothing better than a “social values” argument, especially against those who just love to grant and perform abortions. It matters not one bit to them that that has zero to do with the position of OLC.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:38 amEnough of this crap. The only reason the GOP wants to block Johnsen is because President Obama wants her. If they want to wait until Obama appoints somebody who’s rabidly anti-abortion (or whatever other criterion is on their wish list), they’re going to be waiting a long time.
If the Republicans threaten to filibuster, Reid should call their bluff and force them to do it. Furthermore, Reid shouldn’t be cowed by GOP complaints about the threat of reconciliation — the GOP used that without apology when they were in power, so their complaints now won’t fly very high.
Reaching across the aisle to these people is a lost cause, despite many efforts by President Obama and the Democrats. Only Snowe and Collins have shown any effort at bipartisanship, and they’ve been smacked by their own party for it. The Democrats need to forge ahead with their agenda and force the GOP obstructionists into the spotlight. The American people will signal their feelings about the obstructionists in 2010.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:43 amMay be Republicans have Miss Cal. Carrie Prejean in mind..!!
May 13th, 2009 at 10:43 amThe Democrats should make the Republicans filibuster for real. The idea that the Republicans can just threaten a filibuster and the Democrats cave is ridiculous. If the Republicans want to require 60 votes on every bill then they should be forced to occupy the podium continuously. Until the Democrats get some spine they will continue to be held back by the party of “No”.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:45 amWhy 60?? Spineless Dems.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:45 amIf they want to fight the nomination of a well qualified appointee, then bring it on.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:46 amI think that the Republicans are on the losing side of this poorly chosen fight.
misscoleopteramolly Says:
The only reason the GOP wants to block Johnsen is because President Obama wants her
– - Actually, it’s more insidious. The GOP cannot stand a woman with a sharp brain.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:46 amBaseball fans are familiar with “Shoeless” Joe Jackson and his crooked ways but they may have forgotten another historical figure, “Spineless” Harry Reid. He was famous for his incredible inpersonation of homeplate and was stepped on and had dirt kicked on him thousands of times in his curious, undeserved career. He was inducted into the chicken shit Hall of Fame numerous times.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:46 amReid MUST go.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:49 amSpineless Harry Reid strikes again. He should bring it to the floor for a vote and force the Party of No to fillibuster the nomination, if only to add one more log to the fire that’s currently burning down the Gooper house…
May 13th, 2009 at 10:51 amI really want a new majority leader. Reid is stuck in the old paradigm.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:52 amPlagiarizing again, CFP? Have you no actual thoughts of your own?
Bill Bennett
May 13th, 2009 at 10:57 amIt’s amazing how the right wing finds it so easy to rewrite history to justify their perversions…
and how willingly the left (let’s be real, center-left) find it easier to cave rather than stand up and fight….
May 13th, 2009 at 10:58 amHarry Reid is a *LOSER* and a *LIABILITY*.
DUMP HIM.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:00 amWow… pulled that post straight from powerline. Ey, dipsh*t.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023339.php
May 13th, 2009 at 11:02 amConservativeForProgress Says: cut and past plagiarizing.
Typical neocon nutjob, you cannot post in your own words, so you have to steal them and not give credit.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:03 amJust go on recess for a couple of hours and let Obama appoint them. Hey, if it was good enough for Bush..
May 13th, 2009 at 11:06 amSeriously, did the democrats win in November? Unreal–I wish the leadership would actually…lead. let us call out opposition based on politics of embarrassment to the administration. If this was a baseball game, Reid would be relieved to bring in Feingold from the bullpen.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:06 amReid is a boob, there could be 85 Democrat senators and he would still FUBAR this.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:07 amCFP doesn’t care that he is exposed for being dishonest and ignorant. He’s used to it by now.
He’s a typical ignorant lying coward right winger
May 13th, 2009 at 11:08 amIs the Conservative for Progress troll a mere plagiarist, or is he/she/it paid by some reichwing group to post here?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:08 am…
can ANYthing be done to get reid to use whatever spine he might have?
anything???
May 13th, 2009 at 11:09 amConservativeForProgress Says
May 13th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Primarily, this is a national security issue. Over the next four years, the Justice Department will repeatedly be asked to advise on the legality of programs and measures designed to combat terrorism. If too many of these measures are nixed, innocent lives probably will be lost and terrorists may well regain their momentum…
_____________________________________________________________
TRANSLATION: Torture! We want torture! Torturing people is necessary to feed our sadistic appetites! I get excited just THINKING about detainees getting tortured!
Um…you’re frothing at the mouth, CFP.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:09 amNothing like comparing apples and rotten apples GOOPERS make me sick
May 13th, 2009 at 11:11 amSo conservativeforprogress are you actually Paul Mirengoff of PowerLine?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:12 amIt’s no use trying to shame our oxymoronic friend.
He has no shame.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:12 amOnce again the party of “NO” will attempt to bring OUR government to a halt. These “Do-Nothing” Repugs will do what ever it takes to continue to damage OUR government even now they are OUT OF POWER.
“The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail … and so far it’s working for us.” – Trent Lott – (R-MS) – Former Senator and now Big Time Lobbyist
May 13th, 2009 at 11:13 amconservativeforprogress
Are you pretending to be be Paul Mirengoff of PowerLine?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:13 amLora Says
May 13th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Is the Conservative for Progress troll a mere plagiarist, or is he/she/it paid by some reichwing group to post here?
_____________________________________________________________
Hey, times are tough, and those nickels add up. But I don’t think whatever group is paying CFP is getting their money’s worth, since so many of his posts are just cut-and-paste.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:15 amconservativeforprogress
Does Paul Paul Mirengoff of PowerLine know you are pretending that his original work is yours?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:16 amconservativeforprogress
Why didn’t you credit Paul Mirengoff of PowerLine for his analysis of Johnsen nomination?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:17 amWell, Specter switching sides is working out great isn’t it? The DNC needs to run someone against this turncoat in the 2010 primary and put him out to pasture.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:18 amWhatever happened to the Republican mantra of “up or down vote”?
Ah, them’s wuz the days…
May 13th, 2009 at 11:22 amconservativeforprogress said: “Primarily, this is a national security issue.”
and: “Personally, I’m not comfortable leaving national security in the hands of the ACLU.”
Paul Mirengoff of PowerLine said: “Over the next four years, the Justice Department will repeatedly be asked to advise on the legality of programs and measures designed to combat terrorism. If too many of these measures are nixed, innocent lives probably will be lost and terrorists may well regain their momentum (recall, for example, that the Reno Justice Department nixed plans to take out Osama bin Laden).
and:
“Johnsen also lashed out at Indiana’s state voter identification law, claiming that it had nothing to do with voter fraud and everything to do with preventing “certain kinds of people” from voting. Yet the Supreme Court had upheld the law 6-3 in an opinion written by Justice Stevens.
An OLC independent from politics is a fine thing, but not so much when the independent judgment is driven by hard-line leftist doctrine that does not follow Supreme Court precedent. And certainly not when much of that hard-left doctrine applies to issues of national security.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023339.php
May 13th, 2009 at 11:23 amUpdate: The nomination of David Hayes failed in the Senate today
Since when does a vote of 57 in favor, 39 against constitute a failure? The Repugs have destroyed OUR representitive government.
Disgusting Repugs!
May 13th, 2009 at 11:24 am5th Estate Says:
conservativeforprogress
Why didn’t you credit Paul Mirengoff of PowerLine for his analysis of Johnsen nomination?
Because CFP is pretending to be (m)Ann Coulter the plagiarizer, heh
May 13th, 2009 at 11:25 amI’ve seen the numbers, sure, but I still cannot believe that we’re continuing to allow the GOP to run this government. Why should we need 60 seats or more to confirm one nomination? Because the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, are never on the same page at the same time.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:29 amhi Wayne, thanks for that insight :D
May 13th, 2009 at 11:31 amSince when does a vote of 57 in favor, 39 against constitute a failure?
What were the other 3 Senators doing? Playing bridge? Busy day on the golf course? Too chicken to vote?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:38 amHarry Reid = GOOP Lite™…
… All the rich, creamy arrogance w/ only half the testicular fortitude!
Try some tonight!
May 13th, 2009 at 11:42 amconservativeforprogress
Why didn’t you credit Paul Mirengoff of PowerLine for his analysis of Johnsen nomination?
___________
Uhhhhh… because no sane, THINKING human being takes PowerLine seriously?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:43 amCOProgressive Says:
Since when does a vote of 57 in favor, 39 against constitute a failure? The Repugs have destroyed OUR representitive government.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:24 am
__________
Seriously. It’s time for the Democrats to exercise that nuclear option. Simple majority for all nominees. The filibuster is not supposed to be used to hijack the entire government.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:44 amReid does need to grow a damn spine. I don’t understand why Reid won’t force a filibuster. Is the Democratic Party in the majority or what? I hope Specter loses in 2010. The GOP is holding up Johnson’s nomination because she’s a threat. The more they try to hide and burry the Bush Crime Family’s torture legacy the more Cheney keeps exposing it. The GOPers may as well proceed with Johnson’s nomination. Holding up Johnson’s nomination is not going to prevent the inevitable exposure of the truth.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:44 amConservativeForProgress Says:
Johnsen also lashed out at Indiana’s state voter identification law, claiming that it had nothing to do with voter fraud and everything to do with preventing “certain kinds of people” from voting. Yet the Supreme Court had upheld the law 6-3 in an opinion written by Justice Stevens.
An OLC independent from politics is a fine thing, but not so much when the independent judgment is driven by hard-line leftist doctrine that does not follow Supreme Court precedent.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:50 am
____________
Ohhh, so now you guys LIKE activist judges, eh? When did this happen?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:46 amhappily liberal Says:
Yet, you cheered wildly when the d’s did it, hypocrite, much?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:46 am
______________
I did? Do remind me. Point to one post where I cheered wildly for a Democratic filibuster.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:48 am“This is a failure of leadership. Period.” said Christy Hardin Smith.
Why did I think that DEMS were in the ‘MAJORITY’ when in reality, it appears being in the majority means you CAN’T OR BETTER ‘WON’T’ even TRY get anything done [AGAIN]? After 12 years of minority, someone would think things had changed, but it appears nothing has changed at least in the senate. What a waste of time Reid is and if no one will speak up for Dawn, what the hell can they expect? It makes me want to kick some butt out of there – literally!
May 13th, 2009 at 11:49 amHarry Reid should be the picture in the dictionary for “failure.” Seriously. Pelosi gets things done, Harry finds a way to lose every time.
When 57 votes loses to 39, you either need to punish the minority for their obstruction. Reid basically writes them love letters. No political ability at al.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:52 am“The nomination of David Hayes failed in the Senate today, when he received only of 57 votes in favor to 39 against.”
I can’t believe what I am reading so I think it must be my glasses. But every time I re-read it, the same information appears. What is wrong? It appears some of the blue dogs voted against Hayes. Does anyone know who voted for and against at this point? How depressing. What’s the point of being the MAJORITY party?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:52 amchiroptera toasterhead Says:
I did? Do remind me. Point to one post where I cheered wildly for a Democratic filibuster.
___________
That one won’t have an example of anything. It’s just an ideot.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:52 am57 is more than 39.
I know, it shouldn’t have to be said, but clearly Congress has chosen to neglect basic arithmatic by claiming that the nomination of David Hayes “failed.” Seems pretty obvious that, seeing as he got more “yes” votes than “no” votes that the nomination DID NOT fail.
What are these idiots smoking? Fcuk the Republicans and their changing of the rules to suit their own needs. 60 votes is not required, only preferable. They took a vote, the majority voted for confirmation, so get on with it. The crybaby cons can pout in the corner while Hayes does his goddamn job.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:53 amRight back atcha there, Slick:
All of the president’s nominees-both now and in the future-deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances.
- Sam Brownback (R-KS) May 2005
“I believe, about the process of reestablishing the precedent of majority rule that had prevailed for 214 years in the Senate, that would say any President’s nominees, whether they be Republican or Democrat, if they have the support of a majority of the Senate, will get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Senators who believe these nominees should be confirmed can vote for them and those who believe they should not be confirmed can vote against them.”
- John Cornyn (R-TX) May, 2005
“How can I advise and consent without the ability to cast a vote? Forty-one senators are preventing a bipartisan majority from carrying out the duty we were elected to fulfill. In 2003, Democrats used the filibuster to block up-or-down votes on 10 nominations – all had bipartisan, majority support.”
- Jim DeMint (R-SC) May, 2005
May 13th, 2009 at 11:54 amNo Harry, your hands are not tied. MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER, damn it.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:00 pmWhen did they use it?
May 13th, 2009 at 12:00 pmTed Kennedy can’t show up. And Al Franken isn’t allowed to show up. So shouldn’t the “60″ figure be changed to 58. And then they should squeeze Specter.
Oh forget it, Reid is worthless.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:05 pmSend Reid an e-mail and tell him what you think. It probably won’t do any good, but it might make you feel better.
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/
Just make up a street address and use a city/zip shown at the bottom of this page. It has to be a Nevada zip or his filter will reject your e-mail.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:10 pmWith Reid’s obvious lack of leadership skills, there’s also the fact that the Senate looks increasingly homogenized every day, with the only ones standing out to fight to be heard being from the far right, and everyone else fainting at any confrontation. This is the section of Congress most in the pockets of big business, and their own self-serving political interests. This kind of system is not working because it is not representing the change the people want. We won’t see any change in leadership or Senate misdoings until money is taken out of the equation.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:29 pmRealness Says:
We won’t see any change in leadership or Senate misdoings until money is taken out of the equation.
____________
You mean money DOESN’T equal free speech after all?
Who knew?
May 13th, 2009 at 12:42 pmgod. and i’m sorry, but I’m even questioning the constitutional wisdom of the Senate right now:
The Senate is a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives because the Senate is smaller and its members serve longer terms, allowing for a more collegial and less partisan atmosphere that is somewhat more insulated from public opinion than the House.
Collegial and less partisan? Great, so every Senator can agree that:
a) our jobs are pretty sweet and cushy
May 13th, 2009 at 12:46 pmb) lets maintain our own jobs and not listen so much to the people
c) we all agree we like money, right? how patriotic! now don’t anyone rock the boat!
[...]
Democrats fell three votes shy of the 60 they needed to move toward confirming David Hayes as deputy Interior secretary as Republicans voted nearly lock step against the nominee.
Bennett, R-Utah, led the charge to block Hayes over his concerns about Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceling an auction of federal lands for oil and gas leases in the Beehive State.
Salazar, a former Colorado senator, blasted his former colleagues who voted against his top deputy.
“This was a tired vote of bitter obstructionism,” the secretary said in a statement. “It may be uncomfortable for some to watch us have to clean up mess after mess — from corruption to lawbreaking — that is the previous administration’s legacy at Interior, but to cast a vote against such a qualified and fine person is the height of cynicism.”
Bennett said the issue wasn’t Hayes’ credentials but Interior’s lack of response to the senator’s concerns that Salazar didn’t pull the 77 leases for legitimate reasons, instead bending to the will of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
“This was a purely political decision based upon a lawsuit by an environmental group,” Bennett said.
Advertisement
“The real issue in this matter is the credibility of the Department of Interior.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who forced a vote to overcome Bennett’s “hold” on Hayes, said he would continue to bring up the nominee.
“David Hayes is going to be confirmed,” the Nevada Democrat vowed on the Senate floor.
“If I have to wait until Al Franken comes, he is going to be confirmed,” Reid added, referring to the Democratic candidate for Senate in Minnesota who is fighting to be seated.
[...]
harry, as if… oh, never f’n mind…
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12358750
May 13th, 2009 at 12:50 pmThe solution is obvious. Let the Senate go into recess and give President Obama the opportunity to recess-appoint these people that the Republicans are blocking without good reason (or any reason, in some cases). Sure it sucks, but the difference between Obama doing it and Bush doing it is that Obama is trying to get qualified people into those positions. It’s not like he’s trying to get a John Bolton made Ambassador to the UN (against all common sense.)
May 13th, 2009 at 1:05 pmSenator Reid does seem to “find his hands tied” quite often. I would love to see someone in his place who can actually lead and accomplish what is needed. Even if he does not have the votes for something he and the rest of the Democrats could make a really big noise about it. He caves way too easily.
May 13th, 2009 at 1:42 pmLet’s just face it. We have a Democratic Majority leader who is a g** d*** coward.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:03 pmThree cheers for the Party of No!
All Hail!
All Hail!
Aw Hell!
May 13th, 2009 at 2:34 pmRepublicans, the party of accountability for teachers, wants none for them. Send Specter and Nelson to the showers–with no committee or sub-committee chairmanships–and let them rot in hell with the party of “NO”!
May 13th, 2009 at 3:38 pmI’m wondering how Congressmen benefit from executive secrecy. Johnsen wants all OLC memos to be made public when that doesn’t pose a national security threat.
May 13th, 2009 at 5:16 pmArln Specter has lost my vote forever. he isn’t a repub and he isn’t a dem either. and why doesn’t reid let them fillibuster. keep them so busy they might miss their tea party. Bring in the cots!
May 13th, 2009 at 11:43 pmCan Obama say
May 14th, 2009 at 1:52 am“Recess Appointment”?
>Sorry, the link didn’t post.
Actually, if you read the reason most right wing senators gave for opposing her, its her agreement with the supreme court in roe v wade..
May 14th, 2009 at 7:33 amThe GOP is hoping that the American people have a short memory, so if they ever find political power again and want their nominees approved, they will use their talking heads to complain. The Dems need to step up and get President Obama’s nominees in place.
Do they think that she is going to “write a secret memo giving the women the right to have medically safe abortions”?
They are just using their tools to obstruct this administration. If the majority leader in the Senate isn’t up to playing hardball, then get another majority leader who can and will!
I can hear the squawks from the GOP if Pres. Obama does use the recess to get nominees in their jobs… but the president’s argument will easily be to show how long the GOP has put off this process….get the propellor heads to make a really nice chart and Just Do IT!
May 14th, 2009 at 12:29 pm