Washington Times Opinion Piece, Editorial Discuss DOJ Nominee Johnsen

The Washington Times recently published an opinion piece and an editorial discussing President Obama"s nomination of Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. Summaries appear below. ~ Mickey Edwards/William Sessions, Washington Times: The Senate should "act expeditiously to approve" Johnsen"s nomination because "her views on the limits of presidential power are precisely what the Constitution envisions and conservatives have long championed," Edwards, vice president of the Aspen Institute and author of "Reclaiming Conservatism," and Sessions, a partner at the law firm Holland & Knight, write in a Times opinion piece. According to the authors, Johnsen "made her views clear" on the limits of presidential power when she joined a bipartisan group of lawyers that declared that the Office of Legal Counsel should promote "presidential adherence to the rule of law." Edwards and Sessions write that Johnsen is being criticized for "being blunt, unserious and critical of presidential policies." However, these attacks are unwarranted, they write, noting that in the legal profession, "a little blunt talk to a client -- in this case, the president of the United States -- might be required." Edwards and Sessions continue, "What is needed in the Office of Legal Counsel is a person with the constitutional understanding to know that even presidents with whose politics she agrees must obey both the Constitution and federal statutes and who has the gumption to say so, even if the advice won"t be well received" (Edwards/Sessions, Washington Times, 5/21).~ Washington Times: The editorial states that Johnsen "is so radical" that 31 Republican Indiana state senators on Monday sent a letter to Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) asking them to oppose her confirmation. The Republican senators called Johnsen"s views supporting abortion rights "extremely radical" and said she often uses "harsh, sensationalizing rhetoric" in her writings on Supreme Court cases, the editorial states. According to the editorial, Johnsen"s "political advocacy shows a profound disregard for the courts" proper role" because she considers the courts "as making up just another political, policymaking branch of government, not as bodies restrained by the Constitution or existing laws." The editorial continues that Johnsen is "guilty" of "asking judges to impose their own policy preferences" in favor of abortion rights "against the dictates of existing constitutional law." The editorial concludes, "Someone with such contemptuous views of the Constitution should not be the Obama administration"s chief constitutional interpreter" (Washington Times, 5/21).