ILNews

Johnsen speaks publicly for first time in 2 years

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two years ago this month, an Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor was named to the transition team of President Barack Obama, not quite knowing where that experience would lead.

Following her contributions to the transition team, in early January 2009 the president announced he would nominate professor Dawn Johnsen to the post of assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel. He then nominated her on Feb. 11, 2009.

To many, the nomination made perfect sense. She had been in the Office of Legal Counsel during President Bill Clinton’s administration for five years, and she continued to study what the OLC had done during the administration of President George W. Bush.

To others, however, she was controversial for her experience both with NARAL, an organization originally called the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws that focuses on reproductive rights, and her experience with the American Civil Liberties Union.
 

johnsen Dawn Johnsen was nominated for the Office of Legal Counsel Feb. 11, 2009, and withdrew her nomination April 9. On Nov. 19, she publicly discussed her views of the nomination process, reproductive rights, and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. She received a standing ovation. (Photo submitted by Indiana University, Aaron P. Bernstein)

Following a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Feb. 25, 2009, and an 11-7 party-line vote on March 19, 2009, that sent her name on to the full Senate for consideration, Johnsen waited for the full Senate to vote. She waited, and waited, and waited some more.

In the meantime, she and her family moved to Washington, D.C., in June 2009 so her two sons could start school there that summer, she recalled on Nov. 19, 2010, following her first public talk at the law school since her nomination.

At that point, she said, she thought her confirmation was imminent.

Instead, her confirmation was superseded by other events on Capitol Hill, including an opening on the Supreme Court of the United States, a healthcare bill, and other judicial nominations that the Senate considered.

About 16 months after she was nominated, including a renomination in early 2010, and after the Senate Judiciary Committee sent her name back to the full Senate for a vote in March, she withdrew her name April 9.

In her Nov. 19 discussion to a full lecture room of students, professors, and other supporters at the law school in Bloomington, which ended with a standing ovation, Johnsen said she felt free that she could again discuss the things that she has been passionate about since graduating from Yale Law School nearly 25 years ago.

To start, she gave a no-holds barred account of why she supports reproductive rights for women in the U.S. This included her work for NARAL in the late 1980s to fight the potential reversal of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion.

She said she believes that if anything, people who are pro-choice have become complacent and don’t work as hard as they used to because they know Roe is not in danger of being overturned anytime soon, but they should still be aware of the current agendas of anti-choice organizations.

While she had no trouble discussing the issue, and has also taught classes about reproductive rights, it was often mentioned by conservative pundits as a reason why she shouldn’t be confirmed to lead the OLC.

Johnsen also discussed another issue that made her nomination controversial to some: the “Principles to Guide the Office of Legal Counsel.” In 2004, Johnsen and almost 20 other attorneys who formerly worked for the OLC under Republican and Democratic administrations released their criticism of the actions of the OLC during the administration of President George W. Bush.

At her lecture, she read the first principle aloud: “When providing legal advice to guide contemplated executive branch action, OLC should provide an accurate and honest appraisal of applicable law, even if that advice will constrain the administration’s pursuit of desired policies. The advocacy model of lawyering, in which lawyers craft merely plausible legal arguments to support their clients’ desired actions, inadequately promotes the President’s constitutional obligation to ensure the legality of executive action.”

She said these principles and the rule of law would also apply to how the president moves forward following a District Court judge’s decision that overturned the policy Don’t Ask Don’t Tell regarding gay members of the military.

Even though the president agrees with the action and appealing it would be a contradiction, he will still need to do so because Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is the law.

However, she added, during a court hearing Department of Justice attorneys would have the opportunity to discuss his opinions about the policy, including why it may be unconstitutional.

She said the president will likely wait until after the Department of Defense issues a report on the policy, which is scheduled for Dec. 1.

But it was her explanation about her nomination that many people were there to hear.

She said she had “no regrets” about the work she did for causes that others found controversial, even if it possibly cost her the full Senate vote for confirmation.

“Being willing to stand on principle has not hurt me,” she said, adding that anyone who is up for a political position will have opponents looking for something to use against them.

For the law students in the room, she said this was particularly important because it was not only “the right thing to do,” but also “the patriotic thing to do.”

She added the “system is broken,” and that just a threat of a filibuster will hinder the nomination process. In spite of that potential, she was fairly certain at various times that there were enough votes in the Senate to confirm her.

She also spoke about the crisis of judicial nominations and said that because the system is backlogged, and because President Obama has had other priorities during his time in the White House, it will be difficult for the president to get caught up.

She added the incoming senators “won’t make it any easier,” but that possibly the lame duck senators could move forward with votes that hadn’t yet taken place.

Johnsen said the president could also take better advantage of his ability to make recess appointments – executive appointments made when Congress is not in session – especially when nominees have been waiting a long time for a full Senate vote, like she did.

Finally, Johnsen said the process is not only a burden to individuals who are nominated, but also to their families, communities, and organizations that they must give up working for during the nomination process.

For instance, Johnsen gave up a seat on the board of the American Constitution Society, which she recently rejoined. Her husband, John Hamilton, had to give up a seat on their local school board. And her children had to move to Washington, D.C., and then move back to Bloomington, which involved leaving their friends and changing schools.

She said before she knew the ultimate outcome of her nomination, she thought these changes would be worthwhile, but unfortunately things didn’t go as planned.

“She was candid, brave, and inspiring … but not at all bitter about it,” said law professor Aviva Orenstein, a friend and colleague of Johnsen’s who attended the discussion. “After all she went through, that’s quite remarkable.”

Orenstein added the discussion demonstrated Johnsen is an analytic, clear thinker, and that she is very ethics driven.

The discussion also “demonstrated what the nation lost. You want someone in the OLC who will say no to the president,” she said, adding, “I think she was controversial for all the wrong reasons.”

Orenstein said that Johnsen’s nomination process “was just awful,” but that her career was never in jeopardy. Orenstein added she was happy to see Johnsen back at the law school.

Johnsen also said she was grateful to the law school and Bloomington community for their support during the entire process. She added that she was happy to be back home.

She mentioned a Bloomington Herald-Times article from April 2009 that said “may Bloomington always be a safe haven she can call home,” to which she said, “Bloomington is that and so much more.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT