Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
I did check her CV and looked at her publications – in one piece she published in the MN law journal, it seems she supported certain non-enforcement activities by Clinton (regarding HIV carriers and military service), but since my access is limited to the appendix of that article maybe I’m wrong.
Proof she’s a partisan? She was a political appointee under one Democrat and a nominee under another - so unless shown otherwise, I think it’s safe to assume she’s partisan.
If you do check her CV, you will see she acted as head of the OLC under Bill Clinton ---
"She served in the U.S. Department of Justice under President Bill Clinton (1993-1998), including as Acting Assistant Attorney General heading the Office of Legal Counsel..."
published in Law & Contemp. Probs. 7 (Winter/Spring 2000)
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?63+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+7+(WinterSpring+2000)
Considering how many former Clinton staffers Obama has picked for his administration, I think that we need to take a good look at the people who are a level or two below them, the deputies and undersecretaries who will do the day to day operational work and presumably replace them someday if and when they leave their jobs. I'm trying to stay hopeful that Obama's decided to start out with experienced hands who know how DC works even if they don't necessarily reflect his policy ideas (which I suspect are still very much in the process of being formulated), to make for a smooth transition and first year or two, with the idea of grooming the staffers just below them to take over their jobs eventually. They might need some political seasoning--including himself--before they're ready to take on the system. Pure speculation on my part, but if I was Obama it's something that I might consider doing.
We'll see. OLC is pretty high up, though.
But since Obama is the Decider then this appointment is as meaningful as the others correct?
Your position here is more nuanced that I can discriminate: Either appointments matter or they do not. I am happy to consider them general of Obama's likely policy and hence to be encourage. But if so, I then get to be discouraged by his other appointments (very IMHO).
Proof she’s a partisan? She was a political appointee under one Democrat and a nominee under another
That must be why she's on so many panels talking about how important it is for OLC to have the integrity to say "no" to the President.
Do try to keep up. There is a bit of information in the post and the threads that will add to the circumstances you cite.
Proof she’s a partisan? She was a political appointee under one Democrat and a nominee under another - so unless shown otherwise, I think it’s safe to assume she’s partisan. -- Hankest
But not safe to assume she's partisan to the point of
disregarding the law and all precedent, which is what is at issue
here. I can assume she's a gung-ho Democrat; I can't assume she's
going to give Obama every opening and every power he could
conceivably want. Not on the basis of one abstract.
If she had final sign-off authority on all opinions written by Bill
Clinton's OLC for 5 years however, then there is ample data in
those to determine what she'll do going forward.
"PRESIDENTIAL NON-ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONALLY OBJECTIONABLE STATUTES"
Though a close question, the best course here seems the one chosen by President Clinton, with the caveat that, had the repeal effort failed and litigation ensued, a strong argument could have been made against affording Congress the extreme degree of judicial deference that usually accompanies rational basis review. That argument would proceed as follows. When the President takes the extraordinary step of offering a court his considered judgment that a statutory provision is unconstitutional, and he possesses relevant interpretive expertise, judicial review should be more searching and assess the constitutional views presented by both the President and Congress, in light of their relative interpretive expertise. The reviewing court also should consider the extent to which Congress actually considered the constitutional issue in enacting the provision, rather than apply the usual rule under rational basis review that finds "entirely irrelevant for constitutional purposes whether the conceived reason for the challenged distinction actually motivated the legislature."200 The difficulties inherent in the courts playing an enhanced role of this kind in scrutinizing acts of Congress are justified in these limited circumstances, and a more searching judicial review would be more respectful of Congress's lawmaking function than would an expansion of presidential non-enforcement of constitutionally objectionable statutes.
Here's Clinton's signing statement:
the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have advised me that the arbitrary discharge of these men and women would be both unwarranted and unwise; that such discharge is unnecessary as a matter of sound military policy; and that discharging service members deemed fit for duty would waste the [g]overnment's investment in the training of these people and would be disruptive to [*pg 57] the military programs in which they play an integral role.191
interviews Louis Fisher author of The Constitution and 9/11.
1. As we come now to the final days of the Bush Administration, the question of accountability looms large. You make clear that the Bush Administration broke with legal tradition and precedent in a number of areas—in disregarding the laws of war and undertaking domestic surveillance at odds with FISA, for instance. What advice would you give President Obama about how to deal with this legacy? Should there be an investigation? And if it suggests that criminal conduct occurred, how should this be dealt with? -Horton
A large agenda for domestic and foreign policy already awaits President Obama and he will want to put his time and energy into moving forward. But it would be a mistake to sweep the illegalities and executive branch corruption of the past seven years under the rug. It is important to get the full story out on the removal of U.S. attorneys, the process within the Office of Legal Counsel that produced such documents as the torture memos, the continued withholding of legal memos from Congress and the public, and other matters that cast a shadow over the Bush Administration and will cast the same shadow over the Obama Administration. Only a thorough and transparent airing of these issues will bring accountability and provide lessons learned. It matters less that there be criminal prosecution against the U.S. officials who engaged in these actions than that the actions be fully investigated and made public. Otherwise, the implied message is that U.S. officials can engage in secret and illegal actions without any cost to themselves or their agencies. -Fisher
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
