ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Dawn Johnsen

Justice

Goodwin Liu, Dawn Johnsen and The Danger Of Keeping Our First String on The Bench

Calirfornia Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu

For the second time in three years, the American Constitution Society’s national convention — an annual gathering of many of the top progressive attorneys in the country — opened with filibustered luminaries urging their fellow progressives not to shrink into their shells. Two years ago, that luminary was Dawn Johnsen, a former top constitutional advisor to the Clinton Administration denied the same job under President Obama because of her work defending reproductive rights and proclaiming the illegality of torture. This year, Johnsen’s role was played by California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu, the eminent legal scholar denied a federal judgeship:

As you know, I had an unsuccessful journey through the Senate confirmation process. My paper trail as a law professor was, shall we say, a target rich environment . . . .

So what’s the lesson here? Is it that law students and young lawyers should be careful — careful about what you write, careful about what you say, careful about taking a position for fear of losing a future opporunity? Well, let me tell you, I have certainly said things, written things, that I later regretted. I have made mistakes I wish I could erase. We all have. But it would be wrong to conclude that the best way to go about life is to just play it safe.

You know, as my friend Dawn Johnsen, who is here tonight, said — in fact at this very convention two years ago — “no one goes to his grave seeking an eptataph that reads ‘he kept his options open.’”

Watch it:

Liu is right, but he is also one of the lucky ones. Thanks to California Gov. Jerry Brown, Justice Liu will not spend his career on the sidelines shouting advice to the players on the field. Yet expecting fairy godgovernors to rescue the progressive movement’s brightest lights is neither a viable option for people like Dawn Johnsen nor a recipe for achieving justice at on a national scale. If progressive governance is to succeed, we have to be able to play our first string.

This is especially true because the American right has worked hard for decades to recruit and train its most talented members to play in the big game. Antonin Scalia, Janice Rogers Brown, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas all want to do bad things to this country, but they are among the brightest and most dedicated conservatives in the country (and to those who question my decision to include the Supreme Court’s silent justice on this list: Don’t. We underestimate Justice Thomas at our gravest peril). Progressives can only hope to defeat them with champions of similar skill and dedication.

It is demeaning to spend a career looking upward at a glass ceiling, and many progressives will simply abandon public service if they believe the top jobs are unobtainable. Worse, denying the top jobs to top progressive thinkers does not simply force us to match second-string players against the right’s offensive line, it often enables the other side to raid our top talent. Liu and Johnsen both returned to the legal academy after they crashed headlong into a filibuster, but it is both frightfully easy and frightfully common for top progressives to cash in at corporate law firms, K Street lobbying shops or other places that strive to sell courts and Congress to the highest bidder.

Achieving progressive goals depends on grassroots enthusiasm. It depends on the hard work of organizing. And it depends on our shared sense that the wealthiest, most powerful nation that has ever existed is up to the task of ensuring that the daughter of a gas station attendant can aspire to the same dreams as the son of a CEO. But it also depends on progressives having exceptionally gifted policy makers who are willing to trade in a lucrative career in the private sector or a comfortable career in the academy for a much more difficult job in government.

The price of recruiting such individuals is often the promise of future advancement. Restoring that promise, through filibuster reform if necessary, needs to be a top priority of the progressive movement if we expect to meet the right’s smartest, hardest working ideologues with equal force.

Justice

Dawn Johnsen Calls For Legislation Overturning Obama’s Expansion Of Presidential War Powers

In a nuanced article about President Obama’s decision to continue military action in Libya without congressional approval, former Obama Office of Legal Counsel nominee Dawn Johnsen criticizes the president’s reading of the law — and calls upon Congress to reverse this misinterpretation of the president’s war powers:

Contrary to the Obama administration’s legal interpretation, recent military operations in Libya—which include repeated piloted and drone air attacks—should be treated as “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution. This is reportedly what the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel advised. Yet the president rejected this view, instead siding with that of the State Department and White House counsel’s office. [...]

It’s high time for Congress to exercise its own constitutional authority, as encouraged by the War Powers Resolution, and authorize the Libya operation with whatever conditions it sees fit—conditions that this administration, in contrast to the last, recognizes its constitutional obligation to honor.

Congress should also codify its understanding of the terms of the War Powers Resolution. A pending Senate resolution, which as amended by Sen. Richard Lugar specifies that hostilities have been ongoing, would accomplish both goals.

As Johnsen points out, the administration deserves credit for rejecting the John Yoo position that presidents can simply ignore laws constraining their warmaking powers that they don’t feel like obeying — and the Obama Administration is unambiguously right about this. As far back as 1804, the Supreme Court established in Little v. Barreme that Congress may place limits on how the president exercises his authority as commander-in-chief. This is why Congress could have prevented President Bush from escalating the Iraq War, and it is also the reason why Congress can tell President Obama that he needs approval to continue combat in Libya.

In the end, Johnsen’s article highlights the utter unconscionability of the GOP’s decision to filibuster her nomination to head OLC. The OLC head’s most important and most difficult job is to tell the president of the United States when he is wrong about the law. Johnsen proved she is up to that task, and she deserved the opportunity to perform it from within the administration.

Justice

Dawn Johnsen: My Nomination Was Blocked To Score ‘Political’ Points Against Obama On Terrorism

In a must-read article about the broken confirmations process in the Senate, Dave Weigel quotes former Office of Legal Counsel nominee Dawn Johnsen explaining that conservative objections to her failed nomination had nothing to do with actual disagreements with her views:

“I’m not going to talk about any individual meetings with senators,” [Johnsen] says, “but the impression that I got was it wasn’t about me, that it wasn’t personal. It was political. And there were some senators who were very open about that. It wasn’t a difference in substantive views. The things I was attacked for saying about torture, for example—Lindsey Graham and John McCain have talked about that the same way.” (Neither publicly supported her nomination.) “You definitely need to look at how all the terrorism issues and nominees who dealt with terrorism issues were treated. The attempt was to describe President Obama’s approach as not sufficiently tough on terrorism, and make that a political issue.

And Johnsen is hardly the only Obama nominee that became the focus of a smear campaign despite no legitimate objections to her fitness for public service. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) accused failed judicial nominee Goodwin Liu of wanting to use the courts to turn America into “communist-run China,” and a law review article that became the centerpiece of the conservative claim that Liu was a judicial activist was in many ways a call for judicial restraint. Similarly, while no one on the right has provided a plausible explanation for why Peter Diamond’s nomination to the Fed board needed to be blocked, Sen. Richard Shelby’s (R-AL) claim that the Nobel Prize-winning economist was unqualified is obviously absurd.

Johnsen, Liu, and Diamond can at least say that their nominations were high-profile enough that people noticed the campaign of obstruction against them. The sad truth is that many nominees simply die a quiet death as senators delay their confirmation votes into oblivion. Indeed, this silent obstructionism caused Obama to have a lower percentage of his judicial nominees confirmed during his first two years in office than any other president in American history.

Weigel’s piece concludes with an uncharacteristically smart idea by Manuel Miranda, the disgraced former Senate staffer best known for hacking Democrats’ computer servers and stealing confidential documents. Miranda proposes allowing nominees at the rank of assistant secretary or lower to begin doing their job before they are confirmed by the Senate. Doing so would be a real step towards preventing the hollowing out of government we are currently witnessing.

 

Politics

Dawn Johnsen Advises Progressives To Stick By Their Principles: ‘I Have No Regrets’

In April, Dawn Johnsen withdrew from consideration to be the next Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The progressive community had applauded Johnsen as one of President Obama’s best nominees, but Republicans ended up blocking her nomination twice. In a Washington Post op-ed last week, Johnsen suggested that the reason the GOP opposed her was simply that she opposed torture:

There is no simple answer to why my nomination failed. But I have no doubt that the OLC torture memo — and my profoundly negative reaction to it — was a critical factor behind the substantial Republican opposition that sustained a filibuster threat. Paradoxically, prominent Republicans earlier had offered criticisms strikingly similar to my own. A bipartisan acceptance of those criticisms is key to moving forward. The Senate should not confirm anyone who defends that memo as acceptable legal advice.

Speaking to the American Constitution Society’s National Convention yesterday, Johnsen used her first public appearance since her unsuccessful nomination to advise progressives to nevertheless stay true to their principles:

Just after my withdrawal, the New York Times wrote a very positive editorial about why I should have been confirmed. But the editorial concluded by decrying a potential chilling lesson of my ill treatment for people considering government service: “Don’t stand on principle and certainly, don’t speak out in public.” … I want to make clear, that is not the lesson I want anyone to draw from my experience.

My biography should hardly be used as an example of why we should not stand on principle or speak out in public. First of all, being willing to stand on principle and fight for liberties that were at times controversial has not hurt me professionally — quite the opposite. … Standing up for the right to privacy did not prevent a past administration from having me serve as acting Assistant Attorney General and running OLC and continuing to fight for the rule of law over the last decade did not prevent a new president from choosing me to return to head OLC. Nor did it deter a majority of the Senate from supporting me. … My message could not be more clear or more simple: I have no regrets.

Watch it:

This text will be replaced

Johnsen added that trying to build a record that is so boring that Republicans won’t attack you is a futile endeavor. ”In the current climate, even if you attempt a crass political calculus about how to live your life, you may as well say what think, because they can always find a footnote to twist and distort in a twenty year old brief. In my case, it was footnote 23.”

Also at the conference, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) acknowledged Johnsen, saying that she “should be the head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. What Republicans have done to keep you from doing that important job is flat out wrong.” He also joked to audience members, “Look to your left. Look to your right. Odds are, at least one of the three of you will someday be filibustered by Senate Republicans.”

Politics

Johnsen: GOP opposed me because I oppose torture.

Dawn JohnsenDawn Johnsen was uniquely qualified to lead the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel — the office which, under George W. Bush, produced “clearly erroneous” memos justifying the unlawful use of torture. In addition to leading that very same office herself during the Clinton administration, Johnsen spearheaded an effort to establish ten principles which would ensure that OLC never repeats its misguided Bush-era practices. Yet Republicans twice blocked her nomination. In an op-ed in today’s Washington Post, Johnsen suggests that her opposition to torture kept her from being confirmed to lead that office again:

While attention understandably is focused on confirming the president’s Supreme Court nominee, the OLC remains, after six years, without a confirmed leader.

It is long past time to halt the damage caused by the “torture memo” by settling on a bipartisan understanding of the proper role of this critical office and confirming an assistant attorney general committed to that understanding.

There is no simple answer to why my nomination failed. But I have no doubt that the OLC torture memo — and my profoundly negative reaction to it — was a critical factor behind the substantial Republican opposition that sustained a filibuster threat. Paradoxically, prominent Republicans earlier had offered criticisms strikingly similar to my own. A bipartisan acceptance of those criticisms is key to moving forward. The Senate should not confirm anyone who defends that memo as acceptable legal advice.

Recall, Johnsen excoriated the Bush administration’s “torture memos,” writing that “we must regain our ability to feel outrage whenever our government acts lawlessly and devises bogus constitutional arguments for outlandishly expansive presidential power.” Sadly, Johnsen is only one of many exceptionally qualified Obama nominees held hostage by the filibuster and similar obstructionist tactics by the GOP.

Politics

President Obama’s choice for Office of Legal Counsel Dawn Johnsen withdraws her nomination.

The AP is reporting that Dawn Johnsen is withdrawing her nomination to be the next Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Early in his administration, President Obama received praise from the legal and progressive community for nominating Johnsen. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald called the pick “Obama’s best yet, perhaps by far.” As evidence, Greenwald highlighted an article in Slate that Johnsen authored in 2008, in which she excoriated John Yoo’s infamous torture memo. Johnsen also sharply criticized the Democratic Congress for legalizing Bush’s surveillance program. Jay Bybee, Bush’s OLC head who went on to authorize illegal torture — won easy confirmation in 2001 through a simple voice vote. However, despite being recommended by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a party-line vote, the Senate stalled Johnsen’s nomination for over a year. Senate Republicans, joined by Ben Nelson (D-NE) and other conservative Democrats, threatened a filibuster. President Obama could have appointed Johnsen during a recent slate of recess appointments, but declined to do so.

Politics

Republicans use failed terrorist attack as excuse to further delay Dawn Johnsen’s confirmation.

Dawn Johnsen One of President Obama’s long-stalled progressive nominees is Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Since the Senate failed to confirm her last year, the White House has said that it plans to renominate her. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) has also said that he now backs her confirmation, giving her the support of 60 votes. However, Roll Call is reporting that Republicans are trying to further stall her confirmation, “arguing that the failed Christmas Day bombing and other events require the panel to hold fresh hearings“:

“In recent weeks there have been several incidents threatening our national security and underscoring the need for more aggressive counterterrorism efforts, information sharing, and military and intelligence initiatives,” all seven of the GOP Judiciary members write, arguing that, “We believe many unanswered questions remain about Dawn Johnsen’s suitability to guide our Nation’s legal response to the war on terror. … Ms. Johnsen’s record calls into question her dedication to aggressive Executive action in national security matters.

“For the Committee to properly discharge its advice and consent duty, we believe a second hearing is necessary to evaluate Ms. Johnsen’s nomination and approach to the serious national security questions currently facing this administration,” they added.

Republicans are also blocking Erroll Southers, who has a distinguished record on homeland security, from becoming head of the Transportation Security Administration.

Politics

Specter changes his position, announces support for stalled Justice Department nominee Dawn Johnsen.

Dawn Johnsen Last year, President Obama nominated Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel, which, during the Bush administration, sanctioned torture. Johnsen, however, was an outspoken critic of the so-called “torture memos.” Conservatives blocked her nomination, and the White House has said that it plans to renominate her when the Senate officially reconvenes later this month. Even after he became a Democrat, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said that he opposed Johnsen’s nomination. However, today his office released a statement in which Specter says that he will now support her:

After voting ‘pass’ (which means no position) in the Judiciary Committee, I had a second extensive meeting with Ms. Johnsen and have been prepared to support her nomination when it reaches the Senate floor.

Spencer Ackerman notes that Republican Sen. Dick Lugar (IN) has also said he is standing by his support for Johnsen, meaning she has the 60 votes necessary to be confirmed.

Yglesias

Holding Up Koh and Johnsen

Harold Koh

Harold Koh

Marc Ambinder reports that there will be no recess appointments for Dawn Johnsen or Harold Koh:

The true culprits, though, are Republicans, who refuse to allow the Democratic majority to pass the nominees through the Senate by unanimous consent, which would require 50 votes. Non-unanimous consent implies a full debate, which Republicans intend to use to reduce the policy-making energy of the Democratic majority. If the Democrats bring a controversial nominee to the floor, Republicans will filibuster, knowing that there aren’t 60 aye votes. That would eat up precious legislative time.

I continue to be a little bit astonished by how little attention the political establishment is giving to the implications of the routinization of a 60-vote supermajority requirement for all Senate business. This is a very new “tradition” in American governance, it goes against everyone’s common understanding of how democratic procedures are supposed to work, and there’s very little reason to believe that the results will be beneficial in the long run. The fact that the Democrats currently hold 58-59 Senate seats is, I think, to some extent clouding people’s thinking about this. It’s quite rare for either party to have a majority that large. And the implication of the currently evolving norm is that a new president with a 54 or 55 copartisans in the Senate could find himself completely unable to confirm vast numbers of subcabinet nominees, rendering the country essentially ungovernable.

Meanwhile, the administration and the Senate leadership seems to be shockingly ineffective in bringing attention to this. Consider especially the case of Johnsen, who’s apparently being filibustered on the grounds that she’s pro-choice. How is it that Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both pro-choice Senators from a pro-choice state that voted for the Democratic Presidential nominee in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008 feel they can participate in this obstruction with impunity?

Politics

Senate GOP Blocking Obama Nominees In Attempt To Delay Health Care And Climate Legislation

dawn1In April, ThinkProgress noted that Republicans were blocking an increasing number of President Obama’s nominees to pursue ideological witch hunts and to facilitate self-interested horse trades. Two months later, a number of key nominees are still waiting and Senate Republicans are bottling up dozens more of Obama’s nominees in order to delay action on key Obama agenda items like health care and climate change legislation by consuming one of the most precious resources in the Senate: floor time. Roll Call explains:

Reid came to the floor three times Wednesday and several more times throughout the week to plead with his Republican colleagues to stop holding up a growing number of President Barack Obama’s appointees. The Majority Leader’s appeal was his most forceful yet, and aides say he has no plans to abandon the effort anytime soon.

“I would hope that people would search their conscience and try to get these done,” Reid said, explaining that procedural motions that he could employ to clear the nominees would eat up too much floor time. “It would take until the summer, until we finish the July recess and beyond, for us to get this done, filing cloture on every one of these. I hope it doesn’t come to that.”

Absent unanimous consent from all senators, no issue may be considered by the full Senate unless it is given time on the Senate floor for debate. Although such a debate can be cut off by a cloture motion — a vote receiving the support of 60 senators — such a motion itself consumes floor time. Thus, by indiscriminately objecting to President Obama’s nominees, a single senator can effectively force Reid to choose between confirming essential government personnel or advancing health care reform, cap and trade, the federal budget or anything else on the Senate’s agenda. Floor time is limited and Senate conservatives are running out the clock to ensure that nothing gets done.

Among the nominees conservatives are holding hostage are Dawn Johnsen, President Obama’s exceptionally qualified nominee to head the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, Harold Koh, a leading expert in international law who is nominated to be the chief legal adviser to the State Department, and Judge David Hamilton, a court of appeals nominee currently being blocked because of false claims that he gave preferential treatment to Muslims in favor of Christians.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up