Althouse: "Mr. Obama has nominated as his main executive branch lawyer someone who believes in diminishing the powers of the executive branch."

January 11, 2009

"Mr. Obama has nominated as his main executive branch lawyer someone who believes in diminishing the powers of the executive branch."

"This is akin to naming a conscientious objector as the head of the armed forces, or hiring your wife's divorce lawyer to handle your side of the settlement too."

From an interesting — if exaggerated — Wall Street Journal attack on Dawn Johnsen, who will head the Office of Legal Counsel.

18 comments:

George M. Spencer said...: Hmm...Johnsen might pass the Dietrich test. Elena Kagan, not sure.

Liberals are sea kittens.; 1/11/09, 7:41 AM
traditionalguy said...: This appointment should not be a big surprise. Pres. Obama's only clear announced policy goal during the recent campaign was that from day one he would stop wasting the $$ on military actions when you could spend the same $$ on urban Ghetto communities and Health care and on Carbon Offset emergencies to desparately cool the planet thereby stopping the rising of the oceans. All of these heroic policies are presently on hold until he can find legal authority to forbid the continued wasteful fighting against the terrorists. So he needs her legal craft big time. The Repubs on the other hand think Pres. Obama's preferred expenditure goals are a big waste of the $$. I think that they are both right.; 1/11/09, 7:57 AM
EnigmatiCore said...: Traditionalguy-- so instead of spending it on defending our nation's interests, he'll be wasting them on those other things? Niiiice.

(See? I can put the neutral word 'spend' in one place and the negative word 'waste' in another, just like you! At least you didn't use 'invest' instead of spend on the part you believe in.)

But as for this appointment, if he believes in diminishing the power of the Executive branch, then I like him.; 1/11/09, 8:13 AM
knox said...: This is akin to naming a conscientious objector as the head of the armed forces

I don't buy this. A lawyer will do whatever you pay him to do.; 1/11/09, 8:28 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: You can bet that Johnsen won't be nearly as troubled by executive authority now that the *good guys* are in charge and she's on the team.; 1/11/09, 8:41 AM
John Althouse Cohen said...: This is akin to naming a conscientious objector as the head of the armed forces, or hiring your wife's divorce lawyer to handle your side of the settlement too.

By the same token, would the WSJ say it's foolish to elect politicians who believe in limited government?; 1/11/09, 8:41 AM
ricpic said...: Between this broad and Panetta Bambi's already thrown in the towel on the war on terror.

Dim dhimmi future ahead.; 1/11/09, 8:58 AM
Anonymous said...: By the same token, would the WSJ say it's foolish to elect politicians who believe in limited government?

I would hope that they would applaud the move by said duly elected as a return to the ideals set forth by the wise men who wrote the Declaration of Independence.; 1/11/09, 9:10 AM
Anonymous said...: I think it's good. Don't we want a diminished Obama Executive? Given his apparent governmentalism, anything that reduces control in his Administration would not be a bad thing.; 1/11/09, 9:22 AM
Bissage said...: Seems some people might be astonished to learn that a sizable majority of criminal defense attorneys are opposed to crime.; 1/11/09, 9:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Translation–the right wing is attacking President-elect Obama and his choices regardless of what they are. I'm shocked, shocked, to find that there's gambling going on in here.

Really-if President-elect Obama's pick was not in favor of scaling back from Bush's broad overreaches of Presidential power, the right wing would be assailing him for hypocrisy, and in a hypocritical move of their own, would almost certainly be accusing him of-wait for it-constitutional overreaching.

But since he actually picked someone who shares the same beliefs that President-elect Obama spoke of during his campaign, now he's being accused of weakening the Presidency.

There's no answer that would satisfy them.; 1/11/09, 10:38 AM
Wince said...: Knox said...

I don't buy this. A lawyer will do whatever you pay him to do.

But that's the crux of the WSJ's beef with Johnsen particular view of the OLC.

And that's where Ms. Johnsen's premises are most dangerous. "In considering whether a proposed action is lawful," she writes, "the proper OLC inquiry is not simply whether the executive branch can get away with it," in the sense of writing opinions that can "withstand judicial review." She sees the OLC staff not as legal technicians working on behalf of the President but as a policy outfit free to quash Presidential actions with which it happens to disagree.; 1/11/09, 10:51 AM
Cedarford said...: ricpic said...
Between this broad and Panetta Bambi's already thrown in the towel on the war on terror.

Dim dhimmi future ahead.

Calling the conflict with elements of the fast-breeding Islamic world a "war on terror" was a stupid thing to start with. Sort of like calling WWII "the war on Japanese torpedo bombers".

As if we only have a problem with the tactic that many Americans happen to laud other practitioners of it - like Mandela, Kenyatta, Begin - and have no other areas of conflict with Islamic elements.

Not OK with suicide bombers, or airplane hijackers...but just fine and dandy with organized Islamic warfare, legal oppression of women and legal intolerance of infidels, and efforts to equip and arm their regular armed forces with nukes and other WMDs.

**********************
eaglewingz08 said...
I think it's good. Don't we want a diminished Obama Executive? Given his apparent governmentalism, anything that reduces control in his Administration would not be a bad thing.

There probably needs to be a decent round of silence on the matter of big governmentalism and reckless spending - by Republicans.

Bush grew Big Gummint by 40%, more than even LBJ did. Almost the entire pork-thirsty Republican delegation piled on trillions in new spending to favor wealthy donors and entitlement demanding senior..only a few like Jeff FLake and Ron Paul protested meaningfully (McCain was only a symbolic foe - protesting against little 50K or less earmarks he hated while rubberstamping the overall 29 or 112 billion Bill.) Bush showed his love of more governmentalism by refusing to veto a single bill for 6 continuous years.

And given the failure of self-regulating capitalism, and the fatcats demanding taxpayer bailout or we would suffer a complete collapse as credit, housing, and business finance stopped....we have no choice but to fix the mess with government. Wall Street, bankers, entrepreneurs, new technology immediately outsourced to Asia, even the "productive American workers" losing their jobs right and left to cheaper global labor supplies - cannot be trusted to get America strong and solvent again.

Clinton, Bush, and the Republican Congress set up the catastrophe. We should all hope that Obama and his team turn out to be strong leaders making wise decisions to start cleaning up the horrific mess they inherited.; 1/11/09, 11:19 AM
garage mahal said...: I hope Obama gets caught red-handed listening to Andrew McCarthy's phone conversations as the media yawns reporting on shocking new revelations about Newt Gingrich's hair.; 1/11/09, 11:35 AM
paul a'barge said...: TraditionalGuy: Carbon Offset emergencies

Bwah hah hah (repeat).

Can these folks get any more creepy?; 1/11/09, 12:44 PM
dick said...: JAC,

I would think that is precisely what the WSJ would support. They (and I) would want a president and a government who got out of the way. The more the people are responsible for their lives the better. The government should not be your mama and papa. Limit the government to what it does best and other than that go away.; 1/11/09, 1:57 PM
Ted said...: The nation owes more than thanks to three unlikely modern day patriots: professional poker player, musician, and retired attorney, Leo Donofrio; life long Democrat and former Pennsylvania assistant attorney general, Phil Berg; and Soviet emigree and attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz (she’s also a dentist).

While Mr. Donofrio painstakingly established the airtight case that BHO could not be an Article II “natural born citizen” (at BHO’s birth, dad was British/Kenyan, not American, citizen) Leo’s Stay of the 12/15/08 electoral college vote was denied by SCOTUS as procedurally unripe.

Nevertheless, since no congressman and senator objected on 1/8/09 to Congress’ count and certification of the electoral vote which would have turned resolution of Obama’s eligibility issue over to Congress — rendering moot the Berg and Taitz (Lightfoot) cases — Berg finally does achieve standing on the issue of actual harm, to be addressed at the Friday 1/9/09 SCOTUS Conference on Writ of Certiorari. Obama’s failure to submit evidence of his constitutional qualification for the 1/9/09 conference will mean he cannot thereafter challenge Berg’s request to enjoin the 1/8/09 Congressional electoral count and certification, albeit retroactive, scheduled for SCOTUS conference Friday 1/16/09. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a full Court conference on the Lightfoot case Friday 1/23/09 in the event there needs to be a Constitutionally mandated action, the Inauguration itself, to enjoin retroactively.

Now that BHO is in checkmate and cannot be POTUS, he can be a patriot as well. He need not subject the nation to the expense and trauma of requiring SCOTUS to overrule his ‘Presidency’. BHO can and should voluntarily step down with Biden becoming Acting POTUS under the 20th Amendment, and under the agreement all potential claims by the Government for itself and on behalf of others against BHO are released.; 1/11/09, 2:46 PM
Cedarford said...: Great. Ted the Truther nut shows up.; 1/11/09, 4:09 PM