ILNews

Law professor ends 15-month nomination battle

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

On a historic day when a longtime U.S. Supreme Court justice announced his retirement and an Indianapolis judge marked his investiture to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, an Indiana law professor withdrew her name from consideration for a post with the Department of Justice.

On Friday, Dawn Johnsen, constitutional law professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington, withdrew her long-stalled nomination to lead the Office of Legal Counsel. She cited political delays, saying the move was made in order to protect the fundamental duty the legal office fulfills.

"Restoring OLC to its best nonpartisan traditions was my primary objective for my anticipated service in this administration," she said in a written statement. "Unfortunately, my nomination has met with lengthy delays and political opposition that threaten that objective and prevent OLC from functioning at full strength. I hope that the withdrawal of my nomination will allow this important office to be filled promptly."

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt issued a statement that praised Johnsen's credentials and past service but said it was "clear that Senate Republicans will not allow her to be confirmed." The president is now working to identify a replacement who can provide impartial legal advice and constitutional analysis to the executive branch, with hopes the U.S. Senate will move beyond politics to swiftly confirm that nominee.

Johnsen plans to continue teaching courses on constitutional law, presidential power, and reproductive rights, as she's done on a full-time basis during the 15-month long nomination process.

Dean Lauren Robel said the withdrawal is disappointing not only for Johnsen but also for the entire law school.

"Professor Johnsen's credentials and her demonstrated commitment to the rule of law make her eminently qualified to the lead the OLC, and it is unfortunate for the country that she will not have the opportunity to do so," Robel wrote in a statement. "I applaud Dawn for the integrity she has shown by putting the importance of an Office of Legal Counsel that can operate at full strength, free from a lengthy and difficult confirmation process, ahead of her own interests."

Marge Baker, who attended the March 4 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, is executive vice president of People for the American Way, a progressive organization based in Washington, D.C. Baker told Indiana Lawyer today that she found the news to be disappointing, as well as why Johnsen likely withdrew her name.

"I think it's a profound loss to the nation. I think she'd serve the country extremely well as she did before. ... She had a strong support from Democrats when she was taken up again in committee. I thought they made an extremely powerful case for her," Baker said.

"What happened here was the other side was permitted to characterize her as controversial for views that are very mainstream. She was pilloried for her strong and cogent and mainstream views that torture was illegal, and was castigated for the fact she was pro-choice, which is a very mainstream position. ... Hopefully next time around the administration will not permit their nominee to get labeled by the other side as controversial when they're not."

Johnsen's name came up only briefly during the investiture ceremony of her brother-in-law, 7th Circuit Judge David Hamilton. The judge's wife alluded to Johnsen in her remarks, and Judge Hamilton said during his remarks that Johnsen deserved the nomination to the OLC. Johnsen did not attend the ceremony.

This story will be updated in the April 14-27, 2010, issue of Indiana Lawyer.

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

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT