Will the Republicans Filibuster Dawn Johnsen?
On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Republicans are weighing the possibility of using their much-beloved filibuster to block Obama judicial and DOJ appointees.
The current Republican focus is on a pair of nominees: Mr. Obama's first selection for a federal appeals court seat, David F. Hamilton, and his choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, Dawn Johnsen. (By coincidence, the two are in-laws.)
But will they actually prevent an up or down vote? Democrats say early signs are troubling.
The Judiciary committee convened to consider Hamilton's nomination on Tuesday and Republicans weren't happy. In fact, most of them decided to boycott the hearing out of protest.
And as for Johnsen? Aides on the Judiciary committee suggested to me that there are two troubling signs. First: The inability of Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell to reach an agreement on a time for a floor debate and vote on Johnsen's nomination (Reid spokeswoman Regan LaChapelle emailed to say "we are working to get an agreement to consider the nomination, and we hope to do so as soon as possible.") And second: Sen. Arlen Specter has said he'd withhold judgment on Johnsen's nomination until he meets with her personally (I've placed a call to Specter's staff to see where things stand).
Of course, the very threat of a filibuster gives Democrats a reason to raise concerns, which could very well be for nothing. Clearly, though, Republicans are taking unusual exception to these two figures, and so we'll be following their progress in the coming days and weeks.
It's not all that common for the minority to filibuster an executive branch appointee. One high-profile example came in 2005 when the Democrats blocked George Bush's appointment of John Bolton to be the White House's ambassador to the United Nations. They refused to confirm him until the White House released classified information about Bolton's conduct as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and the Republicans were ultimately unable to achieve cloture on his nomination. But Bush ultimately circumvented the entire advise and consent process by installing Bolton at the U.N. during a congressional recess.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
This is a big yawn...
April 2, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
One red herring that the GOPers are raising is that Dawn should be filibustered b/c she is (gasp!) pro-choice. I explain why this is bullshit here:
http://overruledblog.com/2009/04/01/senate-republicans-stand-up-for-torture/
The short version is that, because the purpose of OLC is to give neutral legal advice to the President and other parts of the Executive Branch, it is very unlikely that Dawn would have to weigh in on an abortion-related matter unless the President wanted her to determine whether a new restriction on abortion that he supports is legal. Given that President Obama is also pro-choice, this turn of events is very unlikely.
The real story: if Dawn is filibustered, it will b/c of her passionate opposition to torture.
April 2, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dawn Johnsen isn't just pro-choice -- she was legal director for NARAL and headed the ACLU's Reproductive Rights Project. She also compared the right to an abortion to emancipation.
April 2, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abortion is legal! Being against someone because they favor something that is legal is absurd! It is completely unjustified. Now, being against something because they want to STOP people from having a legal procedure -- that makes sense!
That's why Alito, and all the other republican-nominated Supremes pretend they never thought about abortion in their lives. Lying to get on the Supreme Court is just FINE, evidently.
April 2, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Charles Grassly back in 2005: “Filibusters are designed so that the minority can bring about compromise on legislation,” Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, told Toobin. “But you can’t compromise a Presidential nomination. It’s yes or no. So filibusters on nominations are an abuse of our function under the Constitution to advise and consent.”
So I guess that means we can count on Chuck to vote for cloture because he'll be honor bound to be consistent. Right?
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/03/14/050314ta_talk_hertzberg
April 2, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they will delay and obfuscate - the OLC was the heart of the law-breaking schemes of the previous administration.
She wants to investigate and expose what was done, and the Republicans want to stall her.
April 2, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Upper down, upper down!
April 2, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just once, I'd like to see the Dems throw that back in the Rethugs' faces.
Now would be a good time.
And when judicial nominations come up as well, of course.
But that actually happening would require Harry Reid to grow a spine. Or a pair.*
Good luck with that ever happening.
*(And no, I don't particularly care what kind of pair.)
April 3, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
And when judicial nominations come up as well, of course.
Whoops, missed the fact that we actually have a twofer, right here.
Harry, now would be a nice time to start reminding the Beltway media of this particular bit of Rethuglican hypocrisy. Remember the "nuclear option"? You might want to mention that.
.... oh, nevermind.
April 3, 2009 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Others who see the American taxpayer as the "Beast of Burden" are malevolent Sen. Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a multitude of other officials, who only have big business dividends at heart. We must all keep phoning Washington at: 202-224-3121; The President: 202-456-1414: The truth: NUMBERSUSA.
How many more illegal aliens with their families are taxpayers expected to support? The media, along with the government have chanted monotonously for years, that only 13 million have settled here. But the Heritage Foundation have analyzed it's more like 40 million? Then who are we inclined to believe? I think the latter of the two and with that, what costs are estimated taxpayers fork out annually. Remember we have an encumbrance of illegal aliens stealing jobs in "Sanctuary Cities" But then we have Sanctuary states like California. Then guess what state nearly collapsed with bankruptcy imminent? They had to raise the highest taxes in the nation, to cover the $47. billion dollars, so they could support all the illegal alien welfare payouts. Seeing nobody is telling the Public the straight facts, we should use Census tracking to locate and deport all illegal foreign nationals?
Then we have E-verify that was stripped from the Stimulus/Omnibus spending bills. Then we have some pro-illegal immigrant states charging taxpayers to underwrite the in-state, higher education of illegal alien students. Course by now--we know the left wingers, open border brain-dead zealots, are pushing President Obama, to enact another Amnesty, the Dream act and rescind E-Verify, Real ID Act---and then to purgatory with US workers. If they can overrule the US Constitution, they can sure ignore the en masse,discharging millions more impoverished people for the taxpayers wallets--AND NOT THE PREDATORY BUSINESSES THAT HIRE THEM Remember who--THE PEOPLES--Arch-Enemies are? US Chamber of Commerce, ACLU and K Street lobbyists.
April 2, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What in the fuck does this have to do with the post you're spouting this nuttery on? Oh, wait, never mind, the answer to that question would be "nothing."
April 2, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh dear, another Ron Paul/Lyndon LaRoche nutter. Aren't you supposed to be at your border poster, defending our nation's precious bodily fluids?
April 2, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
But will they actually prevent an up or down vote?
The answer is yes. The answer is always yes.
April 2, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
during a congressional recess
Hmm, lemme' see here.
Senate convenes, filibuster ensues. Harry calls Nancy. Congress recesses for one day. Recess appointments made. Congress re-convenes.
Rinse and repeat.
April 2, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that would be an unfair manipulation of the rules, an unconscionible gameing of the system. That would be just so Republican. What Would Newt Do?
Yeah,absolutly! Great idea! Elections have consequences.
April 3, 2009 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they will delay and obfuscate - the OLC was the heart of the law-breaking schemes of the previous administration.
She wants to investigate and expose what was done, and the Republicans want to stall her.
m65 kamagra
June 6, 2010 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink