Specter Waffling on Dawn Johnsen Cloture
Greg Sargent reports that Arlen Specter is now indicating he might vote for cloture on Dawn Johnsen’s nomination to head up the Office of Legal Counsel, though he’d still vote “no” on the final confirmation.
This is a very interesting political development, but it still leaves us with an entirely unanswered question: what’s the reason for Specter’s opposition to Johnsen? The objection opponents have raised is that she’s somehow too stridently pro-choice. But Specter’s pro-choice. And always has been, even as a Republican. When Specter initially made his opposition to Johnsen known, the reason was that he was trying to fend off a primary challenge from Pat Toomey by embracing all manner of wingnuttery. What’s the reason now? Why can’t a pro-choice Democratic Senator vote “yes” on a pro-choice Democratic President’s nomination of a pro-choice Democrat to a Justice Department position?
47 Responses to “Specter Waffling on Dawn Johnsen Cloture”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 15th, 2009 at 10:36 am
He is trying to minimize the appearance that his change of parties is driving a lot of his decisions, because independents now matter quite a bit in Pennsylvania politics. Once all this old business is behind him, I think you will find him talking and voting more like a standard Democrat, and in the meantime he is going to try to find ways to make sure he doesn’t really cause any damage to Obama and his allies.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Why can’t a pro-choice Democratic Senator vote “yes” on a pro-choice Democratic President’s nomination of a pro-choice Democrat to a Justice Department position?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Undetected early stage dementia.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:39 am
How’s this for an odd but explanatory scenario — Specter intends to cross back to the GOP at the last minute, tossing up his hands and saying that the Obama Democrats can’t be trusted and there needs to be a substantive opposition to them (and not wacks like Toomey) — so make sure I stay in the Senate, non-wack Republicans and western PA Democrats!
May 15th, 2009 at 10:39 am
I like DTM’s theory. Spector is trying to be mavericky.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Looking for reason or consistency seems particularly futile in a man who has never displayed an ounce of principle in his (political) life.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:53 am
DTM nails it. He doesn’t want to make it look too obvious (even though it’s already blatantly obvious) that his more right-wing moves as of late were entirely to try to fend off Toomey, and that the correct play is to reverse them all now since that’s no longer necessary. So, he’s going to eventually take most of the Democratic positions but do so by extracting irrelevant compromises so he looks good for PA independents.
Which, by the way, is exactly what I said would happen back when everyone was screaming over him not voting for EFCA or the public option on health care. If you really thought that you don’t know Arlen Specter.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Don’t really give a rat’s ass what his reasons are as long as he votes for cloture. As a matter of fact, that goes for just about every vote Specter casts in this Congress.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Re Matthew’s comment “Why can’t a pro-choice Democratic Senator vote “yes” on a pro-choice Democratic President’s nomination of a pro-choice Democrat to a Justice Department position?”
————-
er.. because Specter is too new to the Democratic Party to realize that approval of judges should be based on whoring for one faction or another?
Maybe he actually considers her ..you know.. views on Constitutional issues? Powers of the President. Checks and balances. Separation of powers?
all that nutty stuff.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Anyone wanna run in the primary against Specter? I’ll cough up some dough to anyone who does.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Any Democrat who won’t even vote for cloture on a nominee deserves to be primaried. That should be the baseline expectation for inclusion in the party. This should be the type of pro forma switch that Specter can make at little cost to his reputation. It has to mean something to change parties and refusing to filibuster your own president’s nominees should be part of that. You can still vote against the nominee on principle if need be. It shouldn’t matter where you sit on the political spectrum. That much should be obvious.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:24 am
“How’s this for an odd but explanatory scenario — Specter intends to cross back to the GOP at the last minute, tossing up his hands and saying that the Obama Democrats can’t be trusted and there needs to be a substantive opposition to them (and not wacks like Toomey) — so make sure I stay in the Senate, non-wack Republicans and western PA Democrats!”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That would be a quick, but painful and messy way for Specter to forcibly end his own career.
Unfortunately, so far he’s demonstrated that he’s a much smarter politician than that.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Maybe he actually considers her ..you know.. views on Constitutional issues? Powers of the President. Checks and balances. Separation of powers?
Then he should maybe mention those points of disagreement. To my knowledge, he has not yet done so.
And we’re talking about voting for cloture, not the vote on the nomination.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:40 am
“er.. because Specter is too new to the Democratic Party to realize that approval of judges should be based on whoring for one faction or another?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If only Dawn Johnson WERE nominated to be a judge…
Anyway, it’s not like Republicans don’t tailor their nominees to fit the various factions of their coalition (’Member Harriet getting stabbed in the back?). And frankly, “pro-choice” applies to a pretty large portion of the Democratic coalition, so your point isn’t much of one.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Everything is going fine. You can’t expect Specter to un-do all of his positions instantly, because that would constitute an admission that they were all governed by partisan and tactical considerations, and his whole franchise is to claim that he doesn’t operate that way. It’s nonsense, of course, but it’s his shtick and nobody is going to throw it away in a heartbeat. Eventually he’ll walk back everything to a tolerable-to-Democrats place, which I’m sure was part of the initial deal. I don’t understand why people who are (rightly) cynical enough to believe that politics is largely governed by behind-the-scenes deals are oblivious to the behind-the-scenes deals that were likely made in this case.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:45 am
er.. because Specter is too new to the Democratic Party to realize that approval of judges should be based on whoring for one faction or another?
Oh, BTW, Don Williams, Johnsen’s nomination is not for a judgeship but to head the OLC in the DOJ. which is not only well known, but even noted in the snippet you quote in your own post. Perhaps a little more careful reading before responding would allow for a bit more appropos cutting and pasting of your wingnut talking points.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Re Marlowe at 15: “Oh, BTW, Don Williams, Johnsen’s nomination is not for a judgeship but to head the OLC in the DOJ. ”
—————-
Oh, i see. So if John Yoo publicly comes out in support of Abortion, we can put him back in?
May 15th, 2009 at 11:52 am
How about if Yoo comes out in favor of Premptive abortion of possible future terrorists? I think we may be close to a deal here.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
So if John Yoo publicly comes out in support of Abortion, we can put him back in?
What the hell are you talking about?
May 15th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Can anyone figure out what Don is outraged about this time? Did he actually buy the GOP spin that Johnsen’s nomination has something to do with abortion?
Because the actual reasons she were picked is that she was a DAAG and acting AAG in the OLC under Clinton, and that Obama apparently agrees with her views on the role of the OLC and other substantive legal matters relevant to the OLC.
So if Don has a specific problem with Johnsen’s record or views, fine, let’s hear it. But I just don’t get why Don is obsessing over abortion as if he were just another Republican hack.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
How about if Yoo comes out in favor of Premptive abortion of possible future terrorists? I think we may be close to a deal here.
What?
May 15th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
RE DTM at 19: “But I just don’t get why Don is obsessing over abortion as if he were just another Republican hack.”
——————-
Shouldn’t that be “just another Democratic hack”?
Again, my point is that if we use Matthew’s criteria from above:
“Why can’t a pro-choice Democratic Senator vote “yes” on a pro-choice Democratic President’s nomination of a pro-choice Democrat to a Justice Department position?”
then John Yoo would probably qualify.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“Oh, i see. So if John Yoo publicly comes out in support of Abortion, we can put him back in?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Before we continue, let’s see you introduce some evidence that Johnson is as bad a lawyer as Yoo was, or that she was nominated only because of her pro-choice views. I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say we don’t want to waste our time on outrage without substance.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Don, I know you love Specter because he’s your senator and he fucked Toomey and the Republicans, but this is really weak. The ONLY reason he opposed Johnsen was to polish his conservative bona fides for the upcoming bruising primary. That’s it. Don’t even try to excuse it otherwise. We all know exactly how Arlen Specter thinks.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Again, my point is that if we use Matthew’s criteria from above: “Why can’t a pro-choice Democratic Senator vote “yes” on a pro-choice Democratic President’s nomination of a pro-choice Democrat to a Justice Department position?” . . . .
Come on, Don. Matt wasn’t saying that whether Johnsen is pro-choice is the only criterion Democrats should use, or even that it was a criterion Democrats should use, when judging whether to vote for her. Rather, Matt set up this question by noting: “The objection opponents have raised is that she’s somehow too stridently pro-choice.” In light of that setup, his question makes perfect sense.
And while maybe there is a reasonable answer to this question in Specter’s case, it hasn’t been forthcoming from Specter.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Re colby at 22: “I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say we don’t want to waste our time on outrage without substance.”
——————
Where is the “substance” in the argument: “Why can’t a pro-choice Democratic Senator vote “yes” on a pro-choice Democratic President’s nomination of a pro-choice Democrat to a Justice Department position?”
Given how the OLC was abused by the Bush Administration, it is important that Congress be sure of the Constitutional views of Johnson or any other appointee. That –not abortion — is what should be relevant.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
“Where is the “substance” in the argument: “Why can’t a pro-choice Democratic Senator vote “yes” on a pro-choice Democratic President’s nomination of a pro-choice Democrat to a Justice Department position?””
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s in the rest of the things MY put in the post, which pretty much explains why you omitted it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Given how the OLC was abused by the Bush Administration, it is important that Congress be sure of the Constitutional views of Johnson or any other appointee.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And so far, their only concern has been that she’s pro-choice. But Specter’s pro-choice, so MY’s right, it doesn’t make any sense.
You’re not wrong that they should examine the totality of her record and views. You’re just not right that they’re stalling to do that. According to their own words, they’re stalling because she’s pro-choice.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Re Adam at 23: “We all know exactly how Arlen Specter thinks.”
————-
Arlen has his problems — but I think he is concerned about protecting Congressional oversight and powers.
It was Arlen who proposed a law in the late 1990s to protect Intelligence Community whistleblowers from retaliation by the President — After Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno argued that whistleblowers with security clearances could NOT talk to Congress without Executive permission.
Unfortunately, HPSCI CHairman Porter Goss gutted Arlen’s law –by modifying it to require the whistleblowers to first notify the Executive Branch that they intended to snitch.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Clarification: “After Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno argued that whistleblowers with security clearances could NOT LEGALLY talk to Congress without Executive permission AND COULD BE PROSECUTED AND IMPRISONED IF THEY DID SO.”
Which pretty much disposed of that First Amendment right to “petition the government for redress of grievances”.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Arlen has his problems — but I think he is concerned about protecting Congressional oversight and powers.
Then he should love Johnsen at OLC. She has been one of the most active critics of the Bush Administration for breaking federal statutes in private and withholding information from Congress that has forced them to legislate in the dark, and she has specifically criticized the OLC under Bush for failing to give proper legal advice, and in general for failing to tell Bush “no” when the law would not allow him to do what he wanted to do.
So that doesn’t explain Specter’s opposition to Johnsen. What else you got?
May 15th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“Arlen has his problems — but I think he is concerned about protecting Congressional oversight and powers. ”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps he is, but that’s not what he’s demonstrating here. He hasn’t articulated an opposition to some supposed “unitary executive” view of Johnson’s (nor has Johnson proposed such a theory, as far as I can see).
May 15th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
BTW, how did Specter vote on Bush’s Justice/OLC nominees? That may not necessarily implicate his commitment to the issue of Congressional oversight and powers, but it might call into question his judgment and effectiveness.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Re Don Williams
I find this to be totally unbelievable. Mr. Williams saying something positive about Arlen Spector, he of the formers’ least favorite ethnic group? How about saying something positive about Jane Harmon who, unlike Nancy Pelosi, raised objections to the Bush Administrations’ “enhanced interrogation techniques” and put those objections in writing.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
BTW, how did Specter vote on Bush’s Justice/OLC nominees?
Probably the best test case was Steven Bradbury, acting AAG at OLC who was repeatedly nominated but never confirmed by the full Senate. As I recall, his nomination was moved out of the Judiciary Committee a couple times on voice votes. So I suspect Specter voted for him in Committee, but I don’t know if there is a record to that effect.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Re DTM at 29: “Then he [Specter] should love Johnsen at OLC. She has been one of the most active critics of the Bush Administration for breaking federal statutes in private and withholding information from Congress that has forced them to legislate in the dark, and she has specifically criticized the OLC under Bush for failing to give proper legal advice, and in general for failing to tell Bush “no” when the law would not allow him to do what he wanted to do. ”
————
I know — and this is very puzzling. But others have noted that several major Democrats are also doing the slow roll when it comes to supporting Johnson. See
http://christyhardinsmith.firedoglake.com/2009/05/13/olc-make-that-a-stick-harry/
Not that that necessarily means something’s wrong with Johnson. Sometimes Senators are just sulky bitches if someone is not careful in concealing contempt. Contempt
that’s justified given the Senate’s craven behavior during
8 years of Bush/Cheney.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I know — and this is very puzzling.
Which was really the point Matt was making.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Not that that necessarily means something’s wrong with Johnson. Sometimes Senators are just sulky bitches if someone is not careful in concealing contempt.
Right. I’m pretty sure that’s the only issue here. So stop acting like Johnsen hasn’t been confirmed because Specter or anyone else has an actual issue with her.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Re DTM “Which was really the point Matt was making.”
————
Not really –Matt was focusing just on Specter. Not on Reid and the Democrats who should have been able to push this through by now if they wanted too.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
To paraphrase Stan Marsh: Don Williams, you are so goddamn stupid it’s unbelievable.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Specter’s in a shitty position on a lot of topics. During his “no way will I change parties” phase, he made a lot of proclamations to appease the wingnut base.
When those entreaties failed so completely, he was stuck staking out a lot of positions that aren’t popular with much of the country (and, I assume, much of Pennsylvania’s voting population and, I assume, most of Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary voters). Add to that his effective proclamation that he’s not really a Democrat, just kind of being like Lieberman – hanging out with the blue boys while being more interested in the red guys. And, of course, when he was trying to appeal to the wingnuts, he staked out a lot of positions that he may not otherwise have staked out were it not for political expediency.
So he’s stuck in this place where he’s sworn up and down he’s really a conservative. But his ideology is not conservative (it ain’t liberal either – it’s a mix of political expediency and whatever values he once had), and he’s got to toss his new party a bone to fend off the potential primary challenge from Sestak.
But, if he supports Johnsen after pledging not to, and if he supports EFCA after pledging not to (after pledging to do so), and if he later supports a liberal Supreme Court nominee after (presumably) pledging not to…
Well…
Can you say “Flip-Flopper?”
May 15th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Not really –Matt was focusing just on Specter. Not on Reid and the Democrats who should have been able to push this through by now if they wanted too.
Um, they can’t push it through because of a small number of people, including now-nominally-Democratic Senator Specter. So we just get right back to the same issue.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
But, if he supports Johnsen after pledging not to, and if he supports EFCA after pledging not to (after pledging to do so), and if he later supports a liberal Supreme Court nominee after (presumably) pledging not to . . .
He’ll finesse it. My guess is he will vote against Johnsen but not filibuster her, and support some tweaked version of the EFCA. I don’t think he really has anything to finesse on the Supreme Court nominee–he’ll just praise the nominee as highly qualified.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Not really –Matt was focusing just on Specter. Not on Reid and the Democrats who should have been able to push this through by now if they wanted too.
There’s only so many times you can twist someone’s arm. With the votes as is you have to get Kennedy in from chemotherapy for a random nominee (and make sure every other Senator is there too), while getting either Specter or Nelson’s vote, and hoping Lugar was serious about being the only Republican to vote for her (which is a toss-up in my book). Franken getting in will make stuff like that a lot easier. And Kennedy should really retire, as his absense is essentially a no vote on everything.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
You guys all seem to assume that 60 votes are required to seat Johnson in the OLC. Is that true?
May 15th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
You guys all seem to assume that 60 votes are required to seat Johnson in the OLC. Is that true?
That, or eliminating the filibuster.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
You guys all seem to assume that 60 votes are required to seat Johnson in the OLC. Is that true?
“You know when you said, ‘The love you take is equal to the love you make’? Is that true?”
May 15th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I remember when Specter was my senator, back in the early Reagan years. He alternated approval and disapproval with each nominee with no apparent rhyme or reason.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
No offense, Matt, but this is why Arlen Specter is a senator, and you are not. What you do with power is *use* it – Arlen Specter has the power to say, “No,” so he uses it.
What’s in it for him if he says “Yes” to the Johnsen nomination? By threatening to vote no, he can extort something from Obama at the very least — and every time he votes against something on what appear to be arbitrary grounds, he demonstrates the force behind his threat.
Not to go all Krauthammer on you (and cite a fictional, gratuitously violent example), but it’s why hostage-takers shoot hostages: to show they’re serious, during a negotiation.
Also, some of them probably just like doing it; you don’t go into the business of hard-nosed negotiations if you don’t *enjoy* hard-nosed negotiations.
Unless, it seems, you are a Democratic political leader.