Senate Democratic Leadership Source: White House ‘Didn’t Have the Stomach’ for Debate Over Dawn Johnsen
EmailSo what happened with the Dawn Johnsen nomination? Why was it withdrawn?
Short answer: It was iffy that she had the votes to be confirmed as head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and a Senate Democratic leadership source says the White House "didn't have the stomach for the debate."
Longer answer: Senate Republicans opposed her nomination overwhelmingly, meaning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., needed 60 votes to bring her nomination to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
The White House put all the blame on the Republican minority — White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said, "Senate Republicans will not allow her to be confirmed" — but it was a bit more complicated than that.
A Senate Democratic leadership source said that throughout 2009 two Democrats said they would vote against her — Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa. The only Republican of the 40-member GOP caucus who said he would vote for her was her fellow Hoosier, Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind.
At her Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February 2009, Specter — who normally supports abortion rights (and who was then a Republican) — took issue with a footnote Johnsen had written in a 1989 legal brief when she was legal director for NARAL: "Statutes that curtail abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest."
Johnsen denied that, as some conservative media outlets had suggested, she was equating pregnancy and slavery, arguing that the footnote was merely "a suggestion that there may be an analogy between, not … pregnancy — which I’ve been blessed with twice and have two wonderful sons — but forced childbirth."
Specter remained unconvinced. So even though Johnsen's nomination cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee, Reid never brought it up for a vote.
Specter remained opposed to Johnsen's nomination even after he switched parties in April 2009, but his primary opponent Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., began to attack Specter for his opposition to her nomination.
Johnsen's nomination expired at the end of 2009, but in January 2010 Specter said he'd vote for her.
So President Obama nominated her again.
Then Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., was elected.
Lugar remained the only Republican who told Reid he would vote for her, Democrats no longer had a filibuster-proof majority and Nelson still opposed her.
"Bottom line is that it was going to be close," the Senate Democratic source told ABC News. "If they wanted to, the White House could have pushed for a vote. But they didn't want to 'cause they didn't have the stomach for the debate."
- jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
First,she was a legal director for NARAL?!!! could be bias there!
Posted by: Katy Worley | April 9, 2010, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm
It’s really getting crowded under this bus!
Posted by: Miri | April 10, 2010, 1:11 am 1:11 am
Hopefully, she’ll be the SCOTUS nominee instead. Doesn’t look that way, though. It’s a shame; she seemed to be one of the few people that had the guts to pursue the Bush Administration’s abuses of detainees.
Posted by: soc | April 10, 2010, 6:19 am 6:19 am
Johnsen’s position at DOJ had nothing to do with abortion yet the religious zealots still used her previous employment and likely support for women’s rights against her. And our President left her out in the cold for over a year with hardly even tepid support. This Administration doesn’t have the stomach to support women’s rights; will women have the stomach to support this Administration?
Posted by: edgery | April 10, 2010, 7:50 am 7:50 am
I don’t see any problem with her comment. It is clearly the “forced” part that forms the analogy with involuntary servitude, not the “pregnancy” part. If you were forced to work as a carpenter, that would be like involuntary servitude. That isn’t a slam against carpentry, Arlen.
Gotta love soc’s comment. :) We’re gonna need a bigger bus.
Posted by: David Conrad | April 10, 2010, 11:06 am 11:06 am
Love all the posturing that it’s the GOP’s fault. You should read the comments on HuffPo! The truth is, the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority all through ’09 — and (as JT writes) couldn’t get it through. Perhaps, at that point, you should look at the nominee, Obama?
Posted by: Liz | April 10, 2010, 12:36 pm 12:36 pm
Liz: FYI: (like you don’t already know, but still feel compelled to “stretch it”) democrats did not have a filibuster proof congress throughout ’09. Wanna try it again? Or would you rather be another source of right wing misinformants??
Posted by: Stanley | April 10, 2010, 12:57 pm 12:57 pm
Even before Spector switched Reid had essentially a filibuster-proof Senate with Spector, Collins and Snowe going with the Democrat majority for most positions and highly likely to vote for cloture with the majority.During the first six months of the year Obama’s popularity was high and it was unlikely that moderate Republicans would have been willing to buck that trend.The problem was that the Obama administration never took appointments seriously and felt that they could get anybody confirmed,including an avowed Marxist like Van Jones.They were probably right initially,but when questions were made about some nominees the administration had very few answers-it became apparent that vetting was non-existent.Instead of nominating people who could be acceptable to both sides of the aisle, the administration tended to go with ideological picks-remember “I won the election”?Coupled with the fact that Obama is a terrible administrator,it is easy to see why these nominating failures continue.
Posted by: Nephron | April 10, 2010, 1:22 pm 1:22 pm
mama,as far as being parasites,Republicans pay the lion’s share of income taxes in this country.I suspect that the 47% of wage earners in this country that don’t pay income taxes are largely Democrat,if anything.It still bugs me that you called Barry Goldwater a race baiter.You could disagree with his politics,but there was never a more honorable man in the Senate.Where is your proof that he was a race baiter?
Posted by: Nephron | April 10, 2010, 1:29 pm 1:29 pm
Don’t you wonder why Obama didn’t want to fight for Johnsen? Because Obama has continued many of Bush’s anti-terrorist policies.
Indefinite detention, rendition,drone attacks, FISA, the Patriot Act.
How could Bushlite afford to keep Johnsen?
Posted by: ollie | April 10, 2010, 1:50 pm 1:50 pm
What I wrote in regards to racebaiting was this (progressive mama | Mar 24, 2010 3:05:20 PM): What we know is what we’ve seen since the 1970s and 1980s– and it doesn’t look good for the far Republican right. For nearly 40 years they’ve been addicted to race baiting– see Goldwater, Nixon, Papa Bush– and yes, Ronald Reagan (philadelphia, mississippi, for starters… and then follow his record. And I stand by it, no apologies. When it comes to Goldwater, is it better or worse that he engaged in it for practical purposes, in hopes of achieving presidential ambitions when it wasn’t in keeping with his personal beliefs or feelings or values? I don’t know. Its a shame. He took part in cracking open Pandora’s box and his party cranked it open and made it part of his legacy even though that wasn’t who he was.
Ross Douthat(The GOP and the Race Issue, 2007): “The first politician to “exploit” the race-based realignment of the Deep South was Barry Goldwater, and you may recall how that worked out for him. The GOP traded the black vote (and the votes of many liberal Republicans) for the ex-Confederate vote in 1964, and it was an enormous net loss for the party.”
I’d also suggest reading MLK, Jr. on Goldwater. I’d read the full quote, but here’s the bottom line: ” While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand.”
I wasn’t born yet at the time, but seeing as y’all defend racism and race baiting and all kinds of nutty stuff, its hard to take your objections seriously. Can you prove MLK, Jr. wrong?
LOL.
In regards to income, Dems represent both the wealthiest and the poorest districts, as well as the best and least educated. And the income disparity between the parties is very slim as of October 2009– within $2000. So, I’d watch my facts on that if I were you (though I may not actually care about facts if I were, you know, a Republican… lol.)
Posted by: progressive mama | April 10, 2010, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
When it comes to Goldwater, is it better or worse that he engaged in it for practical purposes
______________
Oops, make that POLITICAL purposes. And note my previous quote ends with the period before, “And I stand by that…”
Posted by: progressive mama | April 10, 2010, 2:45 pm 2:45 pm
How could Bushlite afford to keep Johnsen?
Posted by: ollie | Apr 10, 2010 1:50:54 PM
Glenn Greenwald has a blog post on that very thing.
Posted by: progressive mama | April 10, 2010, 2:56 pm 2:56 pm
Give one specific example of race-baiting by Barry Goldwater-no generalities,not quotes by others.It is obvious that you weren’t born at the time,you don’t even know about the man.
Posted by: Nephron | April 10, 2010, 4:39 pm 4:39 pm
The truth is, the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority all through ’09
Liz | Apr 10, 2010 12:36:01 PM
That is a lie. Please look at the documented record – the Democratic caucus did not have a filibuster-proof majority until July. And even with that, it still takes a great deal of time to overcome GOP obstructionism and there are literally hundreds of appointments to move (not to mention little things like the budget, stimulus, health care, student loan revamp, education reform, and other items they tackled and completed).
Posted by: jhw539 | April 10, 2010, 6:41 pm 6:41 pm
Even before Spector switched Reid had essentially a filibuster-proof Senate with Spector, Collins and Snowe going with the Democrat majority for most positions and highly likely to vote for cloture with the majority.
Nephron | Apr 10, 2010 1:22:03 PM
This is nonsense that is contradicted by the documented record, what is regarded as “verifiable reality”. The Republicans set a new record for filibusters in 2009, almost DOUBLING the number any Democratic Congress ever did. This is documented fact. How, HOW did they do this if what you state was in any way true? It is one thing to claim Republicans have good reason to shut down the Senate, but another thing entirely to lie and deny well documented reality.
Posted by: jhw539 | April 10, 2010, 6:44 pm 6:44 pm
From July 2009 until the election of Brown the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority.So how could the Republicans filibuster anything during that time period?
Posted by: Nephron | April 10, 2010, 7:20 pm 7:20 pm
From July 2009 until the election of Brown the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority.So how could the Republicans filibuster anything during that time period?
Nephron | Apr 10, 2010 7:20:07 PM
They DID. That is record. And it easy for a few reasons, including that the Democrats only had a majority if you call Joe “Vote for McCain” Lieberman (Independent – beat a Democrat for his seat) a Democrat, and Democrats don’t vote in blind goose-stepping lockstep. I know math is hard, but you have to be awfully poor to call a filibuster consisting of 96% Republicans the fault of a Democrat.
Also, even with a supermajority breaking a filibuster takes time. And there have been hundreds of appointments (and over a 100 (!!) filibusters).
Posted by: jhw539 | April 10, 2010, 9:40 pm 9:40 pm
At no time in recent history have the Republicans had a filibuster proof congress. In fact the much maligned Mr. Bush had a democratically controlled senate for 4 of his 8 years.
Yet somehow in his bumbling ramblings managed to implement much of his agenda, including his Supreme Court Nominees.
Don’t tell me about Republican obstruction, quit with the Bush/Chaney bashing, amaze me with the competence of the Obama regime.
Posted by: Quo Warranto | April 10, 2010, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm
“At no time in recent history have the Republicans had a filibuster proof congress. In fact the much maligned Mr. Bush had a democratically controlled senate for 4 of his 8 years.
Yet somehow in his bumbling ramblings managed to implement much of his agenda, including his Supreme Court Nominees”
“Somehow”? -As if it’s a big mystery how Bush achieved it. Obviously the Democrats cooperated with Bush to some extent which only supports the contention that Republicans today are being obstructionist by comparison.
“amaze me with the competence of the Obama regime”
I can’t think of a bigger waste of time than trying to get a right-winger to admit they recognize the competence of this administration no matter what it accomplishes.
Posted by: Skip | April 10, 2010, 11:24 pm 11:24 pm
Posted by: Skip | Apr 10, 2010 11:24:09 PM
Really, Skip, it wasn’t a matter of the democrats cooperating with Mr. Bush, because, if truth be told, they did everything they could do to bring him (and the USA) low.
Rather, he based his actions on what is best for the American people.
What was wrong with 5% unemployment, 6 years of a growing economy (which only ended with the Dems gaining control of both Houses of congress in 2006), millions of new jobs, and trillions of new revenue to the Treasury?
Where now is the promise of the Obama Regime? Many are already living in the approaching financial doom.
Save things of intrinsic value, learn a trade, learn to grow your own food, pay down your debt, interesting times are upon us.
Posted by: Quo Warranto | April 10, 2010, 11:53 pm 11:53 pm
Posted by: Nephron | Apr 10, 2010 4:39:16 PM
Can’t refute the quotes? And you want to interrogate/frame the debate after misquoting? LOL.
I’ll make a suggestion that you are free to decline, of course, and leave you to stew as you’re the one with the problem, whereas I’m perfectly fine with my information (and have read some of your opinions on Obama which I find wildly errant and ridiculous.)
Read Goldwater on Goldwater. There’s dogwhistle politics stuff in there, if you’re the type that can even acknowledge it exists. Most Republicans and conservatives defend and mainstream it (though I was pleasantly surprised that Pence defended Lewis and spoke out). I’ll grant you this– many acknowledge Goldwater was more of a crowd pleaser in the deep south back during his presidential campaign than demagogue like Wallace. Perhaps the real founder of modern-day Republican race baiting and such is a Dem– Wallace. LOL.
No matter. I stand by the statement that Republicans have been addicted to race baiting (and fearmongering) for at least 40 years, and my entire lifetime. And now they’re adding scorched earth obstructionism.
For Obama’s accomplishments, join Facebook and “friend” the Accomplishments of President Barack Obama. That should be frustrating for you. LOL.
Posted by: progressive mama | April 10, 2010, 11:55 pm 11:55 pm
For Obama’s accomplishments, join Facebook and “friend” the Accomplishments of President Barack Obama. That should be frustrating for you. LOL.
Posted by: progressive mama | Apr 10, 2010 11:55:54 PM
No need to join Facebook, I’ve lived through the first 15 months of the Obama regime and that is quite enough.
The astronomical debt he has run up will be the end of the USA as we have known it. There is now no choice but to rev-up the printing presses and dramatically increase inflation.
Inflation is the cruelest most regressive tax of all. It cuts the legs out from under the poor that hoped to save a couple of bucks and raise their station.
Save things of intrinsic value, learn to grow your own food, learn a trade, prepare to live at a subsistence level. Interesting times are upon us.
Posted by: Quo Warranto | April 11, 2010, 12:08 am 12:08 am
“it wasn’t a matter of the democrats cooperating with Mr. Bush, because, if truth be told, they did everything they could do to bring him (and the USA) low”
Unless you’re trying to say Bush was temporarily dictator of the USA, if Democrats had more control then than the Republicans have now they must have cooperated with Bush to some extent. It’s the Republicans who are doing everything possible to bring Obama low regardless of how it adversely affects the country.
“What was wrong with 5% unemployment, 6 years of a growing economy (which only ended with the Dems gaining control of both Houses of congress in 2006), millions of new jobs, and trillions of new revenue to the Treasury?”
You can push this baloney till the end of your days but America isn’t buying it. In poll after poll most people realize the Bush economy was a bubble and place the blame on its crash squarely on his and the Republicans shoulders.
“Save things of intrinsic value, learn a trade, learn to grow your own food, pay down your debt, interesting times are upon us.”
Yes Americans are learning to be more thrifty, and having a garden is fun. There’s nothing to be afraid of.
Posted by: Skip | April 11, 2010, 12:26 am 12:26 am
“Inflation is the cruelest most regressive tax of all. It cuts the legs out from under the poor that hoped to save a couple of bucks and raise their station”
Spare us your artificial concern for the poor. If right-wingers really cared about the poor they wouldn’t try and cut social programs every chance they get.
Inflation is slow moving. If we get the economy turned around in time we can head it off.
Posted by: Skip | April 11, 2010, 12:37 am 12:37 am
Posted by: Skip | Apr 11, 2010 12:37:20
Inflation is slow moving. If we get the economy turned around in time we can head it off.
Posted by: Skip | Apr 11, 2010 12:37:20 AM
I suspected you were part of the Obama regime.
There is no way to stop the impending inflation other than default, which would be even worse. The Chinese will simply not continue to subsidize the Obama regime’s extravagance.
The only thing the spend-blindly Obama regime has over the typical family is the ability to print money. Printing money leads to uncontrolled inflation and inevitable collapse.
Check out the history of the Wiemar republic for a Western example.
Check out the situation in Zimbabwe for a more recent example.
Look to Greece for an impending disaster.
Unfortunately America under the Obama regime will soon follow…
Posted by: Quo Warranto | April 11, 2010, 12:54 am 12:54 am
The Obama administration is not “spending blindly”. That characterization is biased. They’re spending on what they deliberately plan to spend on…and printing money will only lead to uncontrolled inflation if you do it for too long.
“Look to Greece for an impending disaster.
Unfortunately America under the Obama regime will soon follow…”
I’m sure it’s what the Republicans are hoping for.
Posted by: Skip | April 11, 2010, 1:07 am 1:07 am
Posted by: Skip | Apr 11, 2010 1:07:50 AM
Where’s the evidence the spending will stop? The first thing they passed after “Pay-Go” was an emergency bill exempt from “Pay-Go”.
If they don’t have the political courage to balance their spending now, when will they have it?
Let’t remember the words of Tytler: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship…”
I wonder what dictatorship will feel like. Will it be a liberal or conservative dictatorship. Does it matter?
My advice: save things of intrinsic value, learn to grow your own food, learn a trade, pay down debt, reconcile yourself to subsistence living. Rent the movie “The Southerner” to get a glimpse of your future.
Posted by: Quo Warranto | April 11, 2010, 1:24 am 1:24 am