Here is the latest nuttiness from my long-distance telephone carrier, Credo:
Confirm Dawn Johnsen to Office of Legal Counsel
The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is an influential branch of the Justice Department. President Obama's nominee, Dawn Johnsen, is fully qualified to lead it: she was acting OLC head under President Clinton. She is also the former legal director of NARAL Pro-Choice America and a vocal critic of ex-OLC chief John Yoo, author of memos condoning Bush administration torture. These progressive positions rankle right-wing senators, who have stalled a vote on Johnsen's nomination for six months. But it's not the job of senators to apply political tests to nominees, it's their job to confirm qualified people—like Johnsen.
Where to begin? First, what does being a "vocal critic" of John Yoo have to do with being qualified to serve in OLC? Second, Yoo did not "condone" torture by writing a legal memorandum. His own views had nothing to do with the legal conclusions he drew, which were based solely on what the law required and allowed. When I was a law clerk, I wrote many memos for my boss. My job was to get the law right, not take a position on what the law should be. Third, if it's not the "job" of senators "to apply political tests to nominees," what explains the opposition to Robert Bork, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and many others? They were opposed not because they were unqualified—even their worst critics admit that they were qualified—but for political reasons. Do progressives even care about consistency? Sometimes I think they don't. They will say or do anything that helps them accomplish their goals, even if it conflicts with what they said or did five minutes ago.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 