ILNews

Senate Judiciary Committee approves Johnsen

Back to TopCommentsE-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 March 4 approved Indiana law professor Dawn Johnsen along party lines for the second time.

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 nominated by President Barack Obama in February 2009, three weeks after his inauguration.

The committee first approved her nomination March 19, 2009, 11-7 along party lines. Because the Senate had not voted on her nomination by the end of the year, it expired and the president renominated her in January.

With Republicans voicing strong opposition to her selection at the March 4 meeting, 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.

Johnsen has been a controversial nominee from the start. She has received opposition from pro-life organizations and conservative groups for her work with NARAL Pro-Choice America from 1988 to 1993. She has also been criticized for her open opposition to actions of the OLC under the George W. Bush Administration, including "Principles to Guide the Office of Legal Counsel," written in 2004 with nearly 20 other past OLC attorneys.

"The American people have seen the mounting evidence that OLC was converted during the Bush Administration into apologists for their desired prac- tices rather than the independent source of sound legal advice that it should have been," said Committee Chair Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., when opening the discussion.

"The so-called legal advice from OLC to the last administration was intended to provide a golden shield to commit torture and get away with it. It was shoddy work that could not stand in the light of day," he added.

Leahy went on to say the legal opinions of OLC attorneys during the Bush Administration, John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, were not within the spirit of the office. This was also debated during the 2009 committee hearing for Johnsen.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., 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.

Leahy 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.

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.

Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way, a progressive organization based in Washington, D.C., attended the March 4 hearing. Baker supports Johnsen and has been following her nomination.

"The reason we support her, and it was very apparent at the meeting ... is that she's eminently qualified," she told Indiana Lawyer. "She's brilliant, and her integrity is respected across the ideological spectrum. I think this was a brilliant choice and she should be confirmed."

Johnsen isn't the only candidate for a position with the Department of Justice who was nominated last year and has since been re-nominated, she said.

Christopher Schroeder was first nominated for the Office of Legal Policy June 4, 2009; the Judiciary Committee sent his nomination to the full Senate July 28, 2009. Mary Smith was first nominated to the Tax Division April 20, 2009; the committee sent her nomination to the full Senate June 11, 2009. Neither received a vote before the Dec. 24 deadline. Both were re-nominated Jan 20 and both passed through the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate Feb. 4.

In response to Cornyn's comment that Johnsen didn't have enough votes to be confirmed last year, Baker added, "I think the votes were there. ... But it was delayed. Health care has taken up a huge amount of time. The degree to which the Republicans have been slow-walking everything is making everything take more time. I think there's a growing sense of frustration, that enough is enough, among senators."

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