Dawn Johnsen's Belief in the Rule of Law Disqualifies her from Senate Confirmation

Dawn Johnsen's Belief in the Rule of Law Disqualifies her from Senate Confirmation

Glenn Greenwald

One of the best things Barack Obama has done
since being elected President was selecting Dawn Johnsen to head the
Office of Legal Counsel -- the office of Jay Bybee, John Yoo,
Stephen Bradbury, torture memos, and theories of presidential omnipotence
Johnsen expressed outrage over the extremism and lawlessness of
the Bush administration not (like most political and media elites) in
the last few weeks when doing so was easy and irrelevant, but did so
loudly and continuously while those crimes were actually taking place. 
Her arguments were grounded in one simple belief: that the duty of
the OLC is to tell the President when his desired policies are
unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.  But as a vivid reflection of
how perverse Washington culture is, those attributes -- outrage over
high-level government extremism and criminality, and a belief in the
rule of law -- are apparently disqualifying:

Reid: Johnsen Doesn't Have Votes for DOJ Post

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) moves to ease a backlog of
executive branch nominations, he suggested on Tuesday that he does not
have the votes to bring up President Barack Obama's pick to run the
Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. . . .

had a contentious confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary
Committee on Feb. 25. The panel approved her nomination on March 20 on
a party-line, 11-7, vote.

But Reid indicated Tuesday that at least a few Democrats would also oppose Johnsen, making the task of reaching 60 votes to avert a Republican filibuster even more difficult.

Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) "is very concerned" about Johnsen's nomination,
press secretary Clay Westrope said, pointing to her tenure as the legal
director of NARAL Pro-Choice America as a point of concern.

Arlen Specter (Pa.), who recently joined the Democratic Conference
after 29 years as a Republican Senator, has stated that he will vote
against Johnsen's nomination when it hits the floor.

unclear what the White House or the Democratic leadership have done, if
anything, to support Johnsen's nomination (Christy Hardin Smith suggests that the answer is "nothing"), but what's not unclear is that they have lent their absolute, unconditional support for Arlen Specter's re-election
in a blue-state Senate seat that could easily be filled by someone
infinitely better than Specter.  It's rather irrational to repeatedly
complain about one's inability to "get 60 votes" when one
simultaneously does everything possible to ensure the continuous
re-election of the alleged obstructionists.  It's almost enough to make
one believe that the inability to "get 60 votes" to support their
claimed agenda is a desired, rather than lamentable, state of affairs.

Senate that is refusing to confirm Dawn Johnsen is the same Senate that
confirmed Gen. Michael Hayden as CIA Director -- with overwhelming Democratic support
-- even after it was revealed that he oversaw Bush's illegal NSA spying
program.  It's the same Senate that confirmed Alberto Gonzales as
Attorney General -- with substantial Democratic support
-- even once everyone knew that he had played a key role in Bush's
torture program.  It's the same Senate that -- thanks to Democrats
Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer -- confirmed Michael Mukasey as
Attorney General even after he refused to say whether waterboarding was
torture and endorsed some of the most extremist presidential powers ever asserted in the U.S.

the Washington culture that finds Dawn Johnsen too inappropriate and
extreme for their upstanding halls of power is the same culture that
venerates as Serious centrists the "Blue Dogs" despite -- or, really,
because of -- things like this:

Blue Dog Dems Rake in Health Care Contributions, Protest Exclusion from Debate

the same day that President Obama met with a number of health care
organizations, a group of 45 conservative Democrats sent an angry
letter to three House committees protesting the secrecy around the
production of health care legislation in the House. The New York Times
reports that this large group of Blue Dog Democrats is "increasingly
troubled" by their exclusion from the bill-writing process.  The Blue
Dogs largely represent more conservative-leaning districts and take
positions that are often favorable to industry. They are also big
fundraisers, with their coalition PAC raking in large amounts from
corporate PACs.

The Blue Dog PAC pulled in $2.26 million in PAC contributions during the 2008 election cycle. Approximately
eighteen percent of that amount - $410,300 - came from PACs connected
to the health sector. During the 2008 cycle, individuals members of the
Blue Dog Coalition raised a combined $6.24 million from the health
. . . . Rep. Mike Ross, who is noted in the Times
article as leading the Blue Dog Health Care Task Force, received nearly
twice the average for a Blue Dog Dem - $259,625 - from the health
sector, the most from any sector. Some other top Blue Dogs, many of
whom are on the Health Care Task Force, are also leading recipients of
contributions from the health sector. Reps. Bart Gordon ($395,178),
Earl Pomeroy ($392,699), Jim Matheson ($350,994), Jason Altmire
($336,729), John Tanner ($264,299), Ross ($259,625), Mike Thompson
($254,625), and Patrick Murphy ($239,371) all rank in top 50 recipients
of health sector campaign contributions.

To recap
the Washington hierarchy of Seriousness:  Implementing an illegal
spying program aimed at Americans is Serious, as is legalizing a
torture regime, endorsing the President's right to imprison Americans
without charges, and obediently carrying out the agenda of groups that
stuff your pockets full of cash.  But arguing that it is intolerable
for the President to break the law in secret and that he must be held
accountable when doing so is deeply unSerious, disqualifying from
holding high political office, including when Democrats are in control
of the Congress (the objections over Johnsen's involvement in NARAL are
quite obviously pure pretext since NARAL's positions are squarely
within the mainstream of abortion views and Johnsen was previously the
acting OLC chief under Clinton without any objections; what changed,
clearly, are both the tone and substance of her objections to Bush
radicalism and lawbreaking). 

Dawn Johnsen is probably someone
who is actually too good for Washington, or at least too good to be
confirmed by the U.S. Senate.  It's still possible that her
confirmation can be engineered -- Christy lists some phone numbers
that might be worth calling -- but, at this point, at least, it looks
doubtful.  Examining Johnsen's apparent inability to get confirmed, and
contrasting it with those who are hailed as the Serious centrists in
Washington, reveals all anyone really needs to know about our political

* * * * *

See also:  this post from earlier today on how the term "Hard Left" is exploited by dishonest pundits in the torture debate, and this one on the mysterious collapse of the Right.

UPDATE:  I have one question for the great fighter-leader, Harry Reid:  during Reid's tenure as Majority Leader, Michael Mukasey was confirmed as Bush's Attorney General with a grand total of 53 Senate votes.  How come Dawn Johnsen "needs 60 votes" or else she'll be rejected?

UPDATE II:  TPM's Brian Beutler notes that GOP Sen. Richard Lugar said he supports Johnsen's confirmation,
and that Ben Nelson will not support a filibuster even though he
opposes her confirmation.  Thus, even assuming that Democrat Specter is
willing to filibuster Obama's choice for OLC chief (as Obama pledges to
unconditionally support him even in a primary), that means that Johnsen
would need one more GOP Senator who, even if they oppose her ultimate
confirmation, would be unwilling to filibuster the nomination.  Beutler
says that neither Olympia Snowe nor Susan Collins responded to his
inquiries.  Based on these facts, it would seem that the White House
would rather easily be able to secure Johnsen's confirmation if there
is any real will to do so.

Share This Article

More in: