ILNews

Editorial: Political pomposity a disservice to public

Editorial Indiana Lawyer
April 28, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial


She deserved the nomination, and definitely was the right woman for the job, but unfor tunately partisan vitriol appears to be worth more in Washington, D.C., than doing the right thing.

Dawn Johnsen withdrew her name from consideration to head the Office of Legal Counsel April 9, the same day her brother-in-law, Judge David Hamilton, was formally elevated to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals during an investiture ceremony in Indianapolis.

It was her second trip through what must be a grueling process: Senate confirmation. The Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor was nominated in early 2009, but her nomination stalled at year's end after no vote was taken. President Barack Obama renominated her this year, but we're not entirely sure why. We understand from news accounts regarding her nomination that the Obama administration was working quietly behind-the-scenes to gain a full Senate vote for Johnsen to lead OLC, but the opposition to her was anything but behind-the-scenes. And sena tors who opposed the professor certainly weren't shy about expressing their relief when Johnsen withdrew her name from consideration.

We aspire to being as gracious as she was in the statement she made announcing her decision: "Restoring OLC to its best nonpartisan traditions was my primary objective for my anticipated service in this administration. 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."

We'd also some day like to be as patient as she is. Answer this: When was the last time you waited 15 months to learn whether you got the job? And to do all of this with not one whit of public reaction while being publically maligned and marginalized by members of the political opposition?

It's been nearly three weeks and we're still shaking our heads at the loss of her service to the country.

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT