Dawn Johnsen’s Nomination Is Officially Dead
It has been obvious for a long time now that Pres. Obama had no intention of fighting for his own nominee’s confirmation, but now Johnsen’s nomination is formally a dead letter. According to Senate rules, any nominations not confirmed by the end of the legislative session must be carried over to the next one by unanimous consent. Those candidates whose nominations are left behind must be re-nominated by the President, or they are dead.
Thirty-four nominees were carried over for confirmation in the second session of the 111th Congress. Dawn Johnson was not among them.
The link is via Digby, who sadly notes:
On the politics, one hates to jump to conclusions but it is very curious that in virtually every single issue area, the administration goes out of its way to reject the people and items that are at the top of the liberal agenda. It’s hard to believe that it’s an accident.
It would be great for Obama to renominate her and fight publicly for her confirmation. He could even provoke a fight over the filibuster as part of the bargain. It would also be great if I woke up tomorrow morning and was 25 years old again. Somehow I think it’s a long shot.
Why did Obama nominate Johnsen, then, if he did not intend to support her or at least make a show of fighting for her nomination? Back to bmaz for the likely answer to that question:
Even assuming Harry Reid had no alternative but to return the nomination, the better question is how did it get to this point, and why has the White House and Senate been so disingenuous about it? The only rational conclusion at this point is that killing Johnsen’s nomination is precisely what the Obama White House desired. The White House intentionally left to rot, and then outright killed, their own nominee.
The evidence of this is pretty damning. Dawn Johnsen’s nomination had languished, twisting in the wind, for 280 days as of the time her nomination was killed by Harry Reid, far longer than any other Obama nominee. The only notable recent support for Johnsen from the White House came in a statement by White House Counsel Greg Craig on October 11, 2009, a weak statement saying only that the White House “would not withdraw” her nomination. Craig was subsequently fired and, hilariously, attempted to be scapegoated by Rahm Emanuel for – wait for it – not getting nominations like Johnsen’s confirmed.
Can’t blame Republican obstructionism for this one — Democrats were only one or two votes shy of the 60 needed to break the filibuster:
Moreover, the bleating by Harry Reid and the Obama Administration that it is all the fault of mean old Republican obstructionism simply does not hold water. The Democrats hold a 60 seat caucus block, sufficient to overcome Republican obstruction. Of those, the Main Justice article is quite clear there were only two Democratic problem children, former Republican Arlen Specter and the ever whiny Ben Nelson, who never passes up an opportunity to betray his party. That means there were potentially only 58 Democratic votes for Johnsen’s nomination. But Republican Richard Lugar firmly supported Dawn Johnsen, so that makes 59 votes, only one shy of confirmation.
In addition to Lugar, both Republican Senators from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, have refused to rule out voting for Johnsen and were being lobbied hard by extremely influential women’s groups and liberal constituents. Both Collins and Snowe have a history of agreeing, when pressured, to allow up or down votes on Presidential nominees, even from Democrats.
Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel had 59 votes in favor of Dawn Johnsen’s nomination, a distinct possibility of picking up Collins, Snowe or both, and are more than aware Arlen Specter needs big help in his reelection campaign in Pennsylvania and that Ben Nelson can always be bought. And despite all of the above, the Obama White House did not ever request Harry Reid to call a vote. The only rational conclusion from this is the Obama White House did not want Dawn Johnsen, their own nominee, to be confirmed.
Share This
This is what I was afraid of when Bush made his power play after 9/11 — that the next President(s) wouldn't want to give up the power he had gained.
One would have hoped that a person that taught Constitutional Law (as also Johnsen does) would have higher regard for person rights, like the 4th Amendment, but power is a funny thing and once it is gained by a President, wresting it back is a long laborious process. See Truman and the Steel Mills for a lesson in Presidential power.http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1394
So who will bankroll a fight to return the 4th Amendment?
Let's see…..
ACLU Staff Council
NARAL Legal Team
Is there any surprise that our President won't fight for her nomination?
The DNC is already facing losses in 2010, no since giving them more ammo.
“Let's see…..
ACLU Staff Council
NARAL Legal Team”
Thanks for reminding me! I trust you have renewed your membership as I just did. Did it online and have already gotten my “Thank You” emails.
Still, they have been on the losing side of late. My piddly donation and millions of others can hardly compete against an entity that just prints money when it runs short . . .
Since when has it become “liberal” to demand that the government leave me alone and quit prying into my private life?
Since when has it become “liberal” or “conservative” to demand that the government leave me alone and quit prying into my private life?
Maybe since the right decided that love, peace, tolerance, and due process were “liberal” concepts.:-)
“Maybe since the right decided that love, peace, tolerance, and due process were “liberal” concepts.:-)”
Those are not “liberal concepts” at all, Kathy. Love and peace should be the cornerstone of our society, but alas it is not.
The liberal part is within “tolerance” as you suggest. Liberals think traditionalists should “tolerate” behaviors that are wrong and damage our culture, and call them “intolerant or bigotted” when they do not. At the same time, these same liberals are not tolerant of religious law and those who wish to follow it.
Tolerance is a wonderful go-word, when you refuse to use it universally.
And I noticed that both you and Vey9 refuse to “reply” to my comments to increase the likelihood that I won't reply. Pretty cowardly.
I can't speak for vey9 (although you can, it seems), but for myself, I am not hoping “to increase the likelihood” that you won't reply. I'm not even sure what that means; if I had something I felt it worthwhile to say to you, then I would say it, whether you in turn replied or not.
There could be many reasons why I might not reply to something you wrote to me, but in general I've learned that conversations with you don't develop or go anywhere. So why continue them?
It's simple, Kathy. If you want me to actually see your reply, you click “Reply”. If you do not, and merely want to undercut anything I say, you reply without it.
And, although few, we have had several productive conversations here.
This, which I wrote:
B: There could be many reasons why I might not reply to something you wrote to me, but in general I've learned that conversations with you don't develop or go anywhere. So why continue them?
was in direct reply to this, which you wrote:
A: And I noticed that both you and Vey9 refuse to “reply” to my comments to increase the likelihood that I won't reply. Pretty cowardly.
Now, I get this comment from you:
BB: It's simple, Kathy. If you want me to actually see your reply, you click “Reply”. If you do not, and merely want to undercut anything I say, you reply without it.
which I assume is in direct reply to this, which I wrote (I'm repeating for your convenience):
AA: There could be many reasons why I might not reply to something you wrote to me, but in general I've learned that conversations with you don't develop or go anywhere. So why continue them?
Am I correct in thinking that this:
BB: It's simple, Kathy. If you want me to actually see your reply, you click “Reply”. If you do not, and merely want to undercut anything I say, you reply without it.
is a direct reply to this?
AA: There could be many reasons why I might not reply to something you wrote to me, but in general I've learned that conversations with you don't develop or go anywhere. So why continue them?
The reason I ask is because if your BB is a response to my AA, I don't understand how it relates to what I wrote. You complained that neither vey nor I replied to you; I explained why I don't always reply to you, and you respond here by telling me to hit “Reply” if I want you to see my reply, and if I don't want you to see my reply, I reply without hitting “Reply.”
I could start laughing uncontrollably, but instead I will make this one attempt to find out what you are trying to say to me. If, indeed, you even know.
And this, by the way, is a leading reason why I don't always reply to you. It's frustrating, because our “conversations” are often like a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces you offer are from another game and don't fit into the one we're discussing.
Not that you DIDN'T REPLY, Kathy. It was that you didn't hit the REPLY TO JEFFERSON DAVIS tab to ensure that I would actually SEE the reply.
You know as well as I do (despite the innocent routine) that if you simply type a message, only those who come to the site will see it. If you actually click on the REPLY tab, the person to whom you are replying, will get an email with the response.
Do you seriously not see the difference.
Go back and read all of the AAs and BBs and see how many say “in reply to Jefferson Davis”. You'll notice that both you and Vey9 don't have that by your posts.
As I said, that “appears” like cowardly hit-n-run blogging.
Do you seriously not see the difference.
You are a trip, you know that? I had no idea that that was what you meant. I cannot believe that even you would expect me to know you're talking about specifically hitting the “Reply To” button when I reply, when, instead of saying that, you say, “I noticed that both you and Vey9 refuse to “reply” to my comments to increase the likelihood that I won't reply. Pretty cowardly.”
You really think that “refuse to 'reply'” means “refuse to hit the Reply To button” just because you put quotes around reply?
Had you expressed yourself clearly and accurately, I would have understood what you meant, and I would have told you that I always hit the “Reply To” button except when I don't, and when I don't it's because I hit the wrong tab and didn't notice, not because I'm trying to hide my replies from you. That is absurd, childish, and paranoid. If I'm going to take the time and energy to reply to one of your comments, JD, I certainly want you to see it. If I didn't want you to see it, I wouldn't write it. If I was “cowardly” and didn't want you to see my reply (presumably for fear of what you would say in return) it would make more sense for me just to not reply at all.
Next time you develop some certainty in your mind about what it means when I do or don't carry out an action to your expectations, please ask me about it in clear English. And if you don't or can't express yourself in clear English, don't accuse me of “playing innocent” because, you know, that's a bit, well, cowardly, don't you think?
If you would have thought about it for more than the time to start typing, you probably could have come to the conclusion I mentioned.
In fact there is only one way to reply without guaranteeing that the person to whom you reply will see it. And that is not hitting the “reply to” button. How else could I say that you didn't reply when you actually replied?!?!?!? It's the only way. It's simple deduction.
It is pretty clear english. And I don't get paid to write, although I can hold my own when I need to. I try. I'll make you a deal…. Unless we're talking about homosexuality and abortion, just assume I mean the “good” thing, and not the “bad” one.