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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT