ILNews

Committee approves some Indiana nominees

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than a year since she was first nominated to head the Office of Legal Counsel, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee this morning approved Indiana law professor Dawn Johnsen along party lines for the second time. Two of the three Indiana judicial nominees for the federal bench also received the green light this morning. Johnsen and the judicial nominees can now be voted on by the full Senate.

The committee approved Jon DeGuilio for the Northern District of Indiana and Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt for the Southern District of Indiana by voice vote without any discussion. But ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said he wants to meet with U.S. Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson. He received a response late Wednesday night to some questions on various issues he posed to Judge Magnus-Stinson and he wanted to follow up with her on those answers before he voted, according to Sessions' press office. Her judicial nomination for the Southern District is held over until at least the next meeting, which could take place as early as next week.

The trio of judicial nominees had appeared before the committee for questioning in early February, following their nominations a month earlier.

Johnsen, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington and acting assistant attorney general in the OLC during the Clinton Administration, was first chosen by President Barack Obama in February 2009. The committee approved her nomination along party lines March 19, 2009, but because the Senate hadn't voted for her by the end of last year, the nomination expired. The president re-nominated her in January.

With Republicans voicing strong opposition to her selection, members voted 12-7 to allow the full Senate to consider her for the job. Members of both political parties went back and forth voicing support and opposition to Johnsen's nomination, which included her positions on terrorism, executive power, and abortion issues.

Sessions strongly objected to her nomination, saying that she was someone who during the 1990s created issues that should be a concern now as the country confronts wars on terrorism. He noted how Johnsen, as part of the DOJ during the 1990s, "frustrated" President Bill Clinton's efforts to hunt down and assassinate Osama Bin Laden, and as a result the terrorists were able to later carry out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Committee Chair Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., countered Sessions' remarks, saying that Republicans were being hypocritical in that criticism. He noted how the former president had fired missiles into a camp during the 1990s where Bin Laden had been known to be residing, and Republicans criticized him for trying to distract everyone from impeachment proceedings which were going on at the time.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also remarked on Johnsen's frank and honest answers when the committee questioned her Feb. 25, 2009, about her views on torture and the role of the OLC. Feinstein added her answers were "entirely appropriate" to the position she has been nominated for.

Leahy and others on the committee also remarked that Johnsen at least deserved a vote after waiting as long as she has, which was uncharacteristic of others who'd been nominated for the position in the past.

"In the more than nine months her nomination was pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar, Republican senators refused to agree to debate and vote on the nomination," Leahy said of the full Senate.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, suggested the vote didn't happen in the full Senate last year because there wasn't enough support from the Democrats and they wanted to make it look like the Republicans were holding it up.

Johnsen has been a controversial nominee from the start due to her open opposition to actions of the OLC under the George W. Bush Administration, including "Principles to Guide the Office of Legal Counsel," written with nearly 20 other past OLC attorneys. She has also received opposition from pro-life organizations for her work with NARAL Pro-Choice America from 1988 to 1993.

A spokesman for I.U. Maurer School of Law - Bloomington said today the school would not comment on Johnsen's nomination until after she was voted on by the full Senate. Indiana Lawyer reported on the Johnsen nomination in-depth in the Jan. 20 - Feb. 2, 2010, issue, "Nomination Revitalized."

Reporter Michael W. Hoskins contributed reporting to this story.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT