What is the hold situation? Wasn’t there some buzz about a senate hold on this?

Let’s hope so. But Holder may simply have been expressing a wish,
not predicting progress on Johnsen’s confirmation.

On a related note, Ruth Marcus has a column today
berating the Republicans for slowing down so many appointments,
but she blows it with the usual “they all do it” BS:

No one has clean hands here. Slow-walking nominations is a bipartisan sport. Democrats also pulled this stunt — often as a gambit to dislodge documents that they believed the Bush administration was improperly withholding.

Marcy reported a one week hold from Specter back in March, but this more recent analysis suggests that the only thing in the way right now is a cloture vote. The Main Justice blog doesn’t say anything about a hold in their analysis, either. But, not all holds are announced publicly, so we never know for sure.

Edit: the Specter hold was on the Judiciary Committee vote, which eventually did go in her favor. We now await the full Senate vote.

thanks so much for the update Jim

I took this as a positive sign

From your link:

Perez’s confirmation is the first to a senior position at the Justice Department since April.

The American Taliban is well dug in and achieving its strategic aims.
A new strategy will be needed to deal with it.

Good job, Jim and thank you. This stuff just doesn’t write itself. Folks like you and cbl2 are my heroes. I’m looking forward to Johnson being up on the 5th floor too! It’s really nice to have some promising news.

It’s a step in the right direction, at least, but I’ll believe it when I see it. What I’d like is to see the Bush US Attorneys shown the door.

There may actually be good news there, too. I don’t remember which link, but one of the articles mentioned above does note that several new US Attorneys have been approved. I don’t know which ones they replaced or who they are, but since all the old ones are Bushies, this sounds like good news to me.

Thanks, demi. In my opinoin, virtually everyone around the Lake is here because we care deeply. I love sharing information when I have the time to do so because I know it goes out to people who care and will act if they have the opportunity.

Given the anti-abortion component of much of her opposition, your characterization as American Taliban seems right on the mark. Beyond characterizing them as “the party of no” I don’t see much effort by Dems to strike back. What strategy would you suggest?

See the update above: Mike Stark is on Capitol Hill today and will ask key Senators their positions on Johnsen.

What strategy would you suggest?

How about Reid saying, “What mean `hold’, kemo sabbe?”

Yeah, forcing them to be completely public about what they are doing does add some of that sunlight disinfectant, doesn’t it?

Holder will be under significant pressure once a video tape destruction announcement is made, especially if no charges are filed, as some are now predicting. Getting Johnsen, a strong advocate against torture, confirmed might be seen as a way to “placate” us

Would Dawn take the job if a deal is made on torture?

The PR blitz about Prof. Johnsen is just that, until there’s a vote.

Bahma & Rahma desperately need to suggest to the American legal and progressive community that it takes the law seriously. (After it’s gutted the laws it wants to avoid. No harm in bringing in the judge and sheriff after you’ve strung up the usual suspects.) The perfect, “But I am a proponent of the rule of law”, tool, one already on the shelf, was Ms. Johnsen’s long-delayed appointment.

This is more Lucy holding Charlie Brown’s football. If I were her, I would seriously consider publicly withdrawing her name, on the basis that the Democrats – not the Republicans – are the stumbling blocks to treating the rule of law as a bedrock principle, not a Georgetown cocktail party punch line.

Wow, that really is something to worry about.

TCU @ 14: Your question is related, too. If she feels that torture is one of the laws gutted as per EOH, that seems like it would increase the likelihood that sh would walk, doesn’t it?

I suspect Ms. Johnsen’s return to Bloomington and to her teaching post at IU – after publicly moving to DC in anticipation of her appointment as head of the OLC – is her silent recognition that as a staunch proponent of the rule of law, the administration was abusing, not utilizing, her talents.

From Mike’s twitter feed:

mccain wont say yea or nay on coture for dawn johnson

But what does McCain think about cloture for Dawn?

I wish Holder was teaching at IU and Ms. Johnsen was the new AG. Now that would be something to cheer about!

And in related news, Al scores a big one! Note that all white male Repugs voted “No.”

Hmmm.
Trading Places: DOJ Edition.
I like it.

I think they were waiting for Health Care to be done before letting this massive pile of shit hit the fan
(including the argument over Johnsen, though she is definitely and obviously not part of the pile except inasmuch as the Repugs will raise a shitstorm against her)

Yeah, as an afterthought to lying through his teeth about Zazi, I am sure Holder is being ultra sincere about Johnsen. Or, you know, not. How supportive of him to make such an ambiguous statement after only nine months of doing diddly shit.

Yeah, it is strange he would now suddenly feel it’s time to speak up. Maybe the lies are wearing him down? Or maybe as some of us are suggesting, getting Johnsen finally approved is meant as a bone to us librul extremists from Obama and the statement about her was more of Holder just regurgitating what he was told to say…

A pinch of Alan Grayson would help Ms. Johnsen and the too cautious American legal community. The greatest talent in the world is of no use if it’s not being used, or worse, deligitimized as unSerious and shrill.

Lucy and the rule-of-law football. Rahma would feel he was being incompetent if he ever allowed Ms. Johnsen to kick it. Obahma might stumble over it en route to a second term.

If I were Dawn Johnsen, I’d walk; as quietly and with as little public fanfare as possible. Given her position on torture, and the treatment of “enemy combatants” prior to Obama’s election, I can’t see her reputation being anything but tarnished by being in proximity to this administration. The Anonymous Liberal and Glenn Greenwald had an exchange yesterday that I think pretty well lines out the parameters for the person who would fill Dawn’s intended slot at OLC. If I were Ms. Johnsen, I wouldn’t want to be within a country mile of this.

And it’s not just because the DOJ’s legal theories have changed. It’s because the law itself has changed. What was once illegal is now legal. So what we’re now debating are proposals to change or amend existing law to make it better. We’re working within the democratic framework to try to effect policy change, which is how things are supposed to work. Three years ago we were debating whether the law even had to be followed. - Anonymous Liberal

Thanks for that link where the discussion is outstanding. I love this bit of William Timberman’s comment:

A.L. is undoubtedly right about the law, but Glenn is right about the politics, and it hardly takes a legal genius to see that the law has proven to be a weak reed to rely on for a defense against the consequences of the politics.

For one thing, A.L.’s assertion that case law now supports the insupportable, while true, is very precisely what is meant by power interfering with the rule of law. The fact that the unconstitutional atrocities which so horrify us are now embedded in the law itself, and that it only took eight years of criminal conduct to embed them there, should be cause, it seems to me, for something close to panic on the part of lawyers. Certainly it shouldn’t be cited as a reason to be complacent, or as a defense of the majesty of the law itself.

And of course, WT’s comment supports your advice to Johnsen to walk away if her job is to interpret and enforce these laws that have gone so far astray from our values. However, she might also look at the situation and see a call to arms where she could make a real difference in restoring Constitutional values.

The administration having pawned Ms. Johnsen and the rule-of-law, I see no reason for her to go gently into that good night. She’s not part of the administration; after this, she isn’t likely to be part of any administration.

Prof. Johnsen needn’t say what she suspects but can’t prove. She can ask questions about why Democrats, too, opposed her nomination, not just Republican naysayers in the Senate. Haven’t we spent years castigating the likes of Colin Powell for slipping quietly away, only to air their grievances when it was too late to act?

The horrible is “embedded” in the law only insofar as individual players – Obahma & Rahma, Holder, et al. – keep surrounding it with the mortar of their actions. It is not yet set in stone.

The horrible can still easily, though with considerable fallout, be disinterred from its august place. That is, presumably, why Rahma & Obahma have decided that neither Prof. Johnsen nor anyone like her should lead the OLC on their watch.

I see no reason for her to go gently into that good night.

It would be a profoundly generous act for her to go loudly, kicking, screaming, and pointing fingers, but she doesn’t owe us that. We can castigate Powell because he was a part of the administration that perpetrated the atrocities we have come to know. Johnsen isn’t so burdened. It would be a charity for her to do otherwise, but she is not obligated, imo, the same way Powell was.

AL seems to miss the forest for the trees.

Which is less defensible? Cheney asserting without foundation in the law or previous political behavior that he has powers a divine-right king would envy, or Obama claiming virtually the same powers, but with Cheney’s legislation and executive precedents as his foundation?

Which is worse? Cheney steamrolling over telecoms companies to build an illegal domestic spying apparatus, or Congress immunizing politicians and companies after the fact? Same again with torture, military tribunals, ad nauseum. The ends are the same. Preferring one over the other reveres a wretched formalism over the purposes of the law.

That Rahma & Obahma use Cheney’s precedents to establish extreme, unlawful behavior as “centrist” is equally wretched, though more subtle. Frankly, I find the banality of the bureaucrat more reprehensible. It hides the thuggish quality of the acts perpetrated – but only from the public, not the victim – and it paves the way for any number of successors to do the same.

George LeMieux (R-Fla) voted in support of Franken’s amendment.

Bennett (R-UT)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
Voinovich (R-OH)

No argument from me. I thought the exchange was an interesting one. And, that Dawn Johnsen should stay as far away from AL’s summary of the situation as possible. To the extent that AL has correctly summarized the Obama administration’s position on the state of affairs left behind by GWB, I’d recommend that Ms. Johnsen not touch it with a ten foot pole for the reasons you state. I’m not saying AL is correct in his assessment of the situation, only that he may have correctly described how Team Obama sees the situation.

So nobody thinks she can change things from OLC? I mean that seriously. Michael Garcia is gone, Steven Bradbury is gone, Jack Goldsmith is gone. If she issues guidelines to put people like Scott Macintosh out of business, can’t she start to get the ship of state to ready about?

I guess I’m just depressed at how many people we have to send down the pipe before things start to change. We put the margins in Congress way up, got the guy into the White House, have gotten Harold Koh confirmed, have ex-Guantanamo prisoner lawyers in the administration. Eventually doesn’t one more lawyer tip the balance? How do we know it isn’t her? Why shouldn’t she accept the job and push for change?

Eventually doesn’t one more lawyer tip the balance? How do we know it isn’t her? Why shouldn’t she accept the job and push for change?

That’s pretty much what I was talking about at 28 where I said she might see the situation as a call to arms and take up the fight.