Nelson's War On Women: Helps GOP Kill Dawn Johnsen Nomination

[Joanne98]

Fresh off successfully making the Democratic Party responsible for reversing the Overton Window on reproductive choice, otensible Democrat Ben Nelson has helped kill President Obama's nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Turkana's diary :: :: It was to appease Nelson that Democrats inserted this inexcusable language into the health care bill's Manager's Amendment (pdf):

7 SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.
8 (a) STATE OPT-OUT OF ABORTION COVERAGE.—
9 (1) IN GENERAL.—A State may elect to pro
10 hibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans of
11 fered through an Exchange in such State if such
12 State enacts a law to provide for such prohibition.

Now, Nelson has joined with Republicans to scuttle Johnson's nomination. The Republicans opposed her for their usual and no longer astonishingly dishonest reasons. As explained by the Washington Post:

Johnsen's nomination, in particular, has been controversial from the moment in January when Obama announced her as his choice. She was outspoken in her criticism of the Justice Department during President George W. Bush's administration as "tainted" by political considerations.

Republicans questioned during a hearing on her appointment whether Johnsen had the "requisite seriousness" to head the Office of Legal Counsel.

After all, how could anyone take seriously someone who was critical of the Bush Administration's exemplary Justice Department?

Torture memos.

Warrantless wiretapping.

U.S. Attorneys scandal.

Political persecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

And how could anyone take seriously someone with this thin resume?:

B.A. in economics, political science at Yale College, 1983
J.D. at Yale Law School, 1986

* Graduated Yale College summa cum laude with a B.A. in economics and political science
* Member of Phi Beta Kappa
* Article and book review editor of the Yale Law Journal at Yale Law School
* Acting Assistant Attorney General (1997-1998) and Deputy Assistant Attorney General (1993-1996), U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, Washington, D.C.
* Legal Director, National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League (currently NARAL Pro-Choice America) (1988-1993)
* Staff Counsel Fellow, American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, New York (1987-1988)
* Clerk, Hon. Richard D. Cudahy, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Chicago (1986-1987)

And in her current job, as Professor of Law at Indiana University's Maurer School of Law:

Johnsen serves on the national board of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and as co-chair of the ACS Issue Group on Separation of Powers and Federalism. Her research interests include issues of separation of powers (especially presidential power) and civil liberties (especially reproductive rights).She has testified before Congress and appeared on many national television and radio news programs as an expert on these issues.

Her courses include Constitutional Law, the First Amendment, and Seminars in the Separation of Powers and Sexuality, Reproduction and the Constitution.

Particularly in comparison to the eminently distinguished, apolitical people Bush appointed.

But Greg Sargent got an email from Nelson's spokesperson, who made Nelson's rationale odiously clear:

Senator Nelson is very concerned about the nomination of Dawn Johnson, based on her previous position as Counsel for NARAL. He believes that the Office of Legal Counsel is a position in which personal views can have an impact and is concerned about her outspoken pro-choice views on abortion.

And just in case you were wondering if Nelson always takes such stands about personal views, Sam Stein explained, last May:

Continued>>>>
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/27/819582/-Nelsons-War-On-Women:-Helps-GOP-Kill-Dawn-Johnsen-Nomination

[atreides1]

1. Obama needs to grow a pair

Or maybe he should just ask for a list of nominees that are acceptable to the Senate, and just send those names.

After all by only nominating those that Nelson and his anti-women caucus have a preference for, Obama will avoid confrontation with his enemies and detractors.

[saracat]

4. Obama doesn't really support choice and supports Nelson over

any issue rgarding women's rights. I hope NAARAL makes a big deal about this.

[depakid]

10. "Obama will avoid confrontation with his enemies and detractors."

Obama, Rahm and the Dems are likely to find out the hard way (again) that if you don't stand up and fight for your constituencies- they won't stand up and fight- volunteer or GOTV for you.

[MH1]

2. If the full brunt of the progressive movement were brought to bear in Nebraska,

could we get a better Senator there?

[SharonAnn]

6. Better - elect enough progressive Dem senators that Ben Nelson is errelevant.

In Nebraska, it would be difficult to elect a progressive senator. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find an opportunity to do so.

However, if we elect enough other Dem senators, then Ben Nelson's positions could be irrelevant.

[MH1]

9. Of course. And as it happens, Specter is ripe for the pickin' next year.

Specter is the other so-called Dem who opposed this nomination. Joe Sestak (2 term congressman and retired Admiral) is challenging Specter in the Dem primary. Sestak is a real Democrat and will be a much more reliable vote than Specter. Plus he can win in PA. (that means he isn't Bernie Sanders. which is good because PA isn't Vermont, and Toomey, the republican candidate, is to the right of Santorum.)

[rateyes]

3. TaliBaptist. nt

[saracat]

5. If this considered a reason to oppose woman's appointment, women are truly

disrespected by this government. This is not acceptable.This is the era ushered in by Rahm and friends when he recruited "pro-Life Dems". I am aware he didn't recruit Nelson but he recruited many others who support this crap, because winning at the expense of women's lives and health is ok with them.

[RainDog]

7. I am really surprised at how backward Obama is about women's rights

honestly. how can he be such a misogynist? because, face it, that's what this is... a willingness to sacrifice women's rights (and glbt's rights) for the meanest, nastiest politico-religious assholes in any western democracy.

you do have to go to a third world country to find men who are so insistent on denying women their right to privacy.

this entire election process has shown me that I was a fool to think the democrats would govern as anything other than fascists.

I don't like to say that. It makes me feel sick.

but that's the truth, even if others don't want to hear it.

I don't want my children to live in this version of America.

[Jim Lane]

8. Nelson is awful, but don't blame him alone.

Dawn Johnsen's home-state Republican Senator, Richard Lugar, endorsed her nomination. That means that we could get to 60 even without Nelson, if the other Democrats would support her.

Arlen Specter, who spoke against her nomination, deserves part of the blame. (Incidentally, Specter based his opposition in part on comments made by Andrew Koppelman, Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law. More accurately, Specter was relying on his own warped interpretation. Professor Koppelman refuted Specter's interpretation in a post he captioned . AFAIK, Specter has neither apologized nor retracted his libel.) We probably can't do much about Nelson. Specter, however, .

We can have some blame left over for Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama. Even without Nelson and Specter, we could get to 60 by picking up another Republican. The most likely candidates are Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, neither of whom has publicly taken a position on the nomination. There was, however, no serious push to bring this nomination to a vote and either get the 60 or force the Republicans to go on record with their ideological obstructionism.

Obama could still redeem himself with a recess appointment of Johnsen, concurrent with resubmitting her nomination for the 2010 session of Congress. If he merely resubmits the nomination, without a recess appointment and without making a genuine push for Johnsen, then I'll conclude that he's not sincere about having a strong independent voice in the Office of Legal Counsel.