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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT