Dawn Johnsen discovers the perils of "blogging, advocating, and speeching."

The law, lawyers, and the court.
Feb. 25 2009 7:45 PM

Thou Shalt Not Blog

Obama's OLC nominee discovers the perils of "blogging, advocating, and speeching."

Dawn Johnsen.
Dawn Johnsen

At her Senate judiciary committee hearing this afternoon, Dawn Johnsen must show why she is fit to be head of the Office of Legal Counsel, the supersecret government office tasked with advising the executive branch on the law. And professor Johnsen is repeatedly scolded for her tarnished history as an "advocate." In the weeks since she was nominated for this job, she has been tarred on the far right as an abortion-loving, terrorist-coddling nut job, despite unimpeachable legal credentials and bipartisan support. The diminutive university professor, mother of two, and Methodist Sunday-school teacher speaks in tones just this side of "whispery." And with armies of cousins, aunts, and preteen sons arrayed beyond her today, it's tough to see her as anybody's zealot. Still, Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., accuses her outright of "blogging, advocating, and speeching for the opposite side."

Dahlia Lithwick Dahlia Lithwick

Dahlia Lithwick writes about the courts and the law for Slate. Follow her on Twitter.

In fact, Johnsen's sternest reprimand of the day comes from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who warns that the problems of the last eight years were caused because the OLC "went far to the right" and cautions that she does not want the office "to go that far left" on Johnsen's watch. (Hard even to imagine what the left-leaning parallel to John Yoo's OLC might look like. Daily yoga drills? Forced huggings for enemy combatants?)

Advertisement

"You have been an activist," intones Feinstein. "You said when you go in that door you will give all that up. Can you do that?" And Johnsen, sounding like she's an inpatient at some exclusive advocacy rehab center in Utah, is forced to repeat, again and again, that her mission at the OLC is to adhere to and promote the rule of law.

Part of the problem is that over the past eight years, Johnsen (whom I know a little and admire a lot) has burnished her academic and professional credentials with punditry, bloggery, and advocacy. This makes her an easy target for criticism. She has spoken out clearly! She has criticized openly! She has used language like "outrage" and "torture" to describe outrages and torture. Curiously enough, nobody on the committee disagrees with these legal conclusions today. They're just mainly bothered that she said them aloud.

Luckily for Johnsen, her advocacy also took the form of spearheading a painstaking process by which 19 former OLC lawyers collaborated in 2004 to form the 10 "Principles To Guide the Office of Legal Counsel." (She discussed it here). These principles are a neutral list of best practices for the office—they include such radical notions as providing legal advice as opposed to advocacy, compliance with the law, transparency, and respecting the views of courts and Congress. Virtually every question posed to Johnsen by the committee today can be answered by referencing one of the principles. As a result, Johnsen manages to look temperate and moderate while the committee looks like a pack of anti-advocacy advocates.

The low point comes when Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., begins to question Johnsen on a position she has allegedly taken, declaring that abortion bans are a violation of the 13th Amendment ban on slavery. Johnsen responds that she was shocked to see this analysis in a piece in the National Review, which pulled a footnote out of a brief written 20 years ago, tore it out of context, then baldly misstated Johnsen's position as concluding that "forced pregnancy" somehow "violates the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits slavery." Johnsen clarifies today that she at no point argued that abortion bans violate the 13th Amendment and explains that the footnote in question merely noted that forced pregnancy is "disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude." Some might call this radical lawyering. Others call it legal argument. Specter seems to understand the difference when he mutters, "I'll take a look at footnote 23. I don't have a lot of time."

TODAY IN SLATE

Foreigners

More Than Scottish Pride

Scotland’s referendum isn’t about nationalism. It’s about a system that failed, and a new generation looking to take a chance on itself. 

What Charles Barkley Gets Wrong About Corporal Punishment and Black Culture

Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You

If You’re Outraged by the NFL, Follow This Satirical Blowhard on Twitter

The Best Way to Organize Your Fridge

Politics

The GOP’s Focus on Fake Problems

Why candidates like Scott Walker are building campaigns on drug tests for the poor and voter ID laws.

Sports Nut

Giving Up on Goodell

How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.

Is It Worth Paying Full Price for the iPhone 6 to Keep Your Unlimited Data Plan? We Crunch the Numbers.

Farewell! Emily Bazelon on What She Will Miss About Slate.

  News & Politics
Weigel
Sept. 16 2014 7:03 PM Kansas Secretary of State Loses Battle to Protect Senator From Tough Race
  Business
Moneybox
Sept. 16 2014 4:16 PM The iPhone 6 Marks a Fresh Chance for Wireless Carriers to Kill Your Unlimited Data
  Life
The Eye
Sept. 16 2014 12:20 PM These Outdoor Cat Shelters Have More Style Than the Average Home
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 15 2014 3:31 PM My Year As an Abortion Doula
  Slate Plus
Slate Plus Video
Sept. 16 2014 2:06 PM A Farewell From Emily Bazelon The former senior editor talks about her very first Slate pitch and says goodbye to the magazine.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 16 2014 8:43 PM This 17-Minute Tribute to David Fincher Is the Perfect Preparation for Gone Girl
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 16 2014 6:40 PM This iPhone 6 Feature Will Change Weather Forecasting
  Health & Science
Science
Sept. 16 2014 4:09 PM It’s All Connected What links creativity, conspiracy theories, and delusions? A phenomenon called apophenia.
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 15 2014 9:05 PM Giving Up on Goodell How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.