Department of Justice

Again, I feel compelled to ask why the folks at the Judicial Confirmation Network, an organization created by Jay Sekulow back in 2005 in order to press for the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees, is suddenly leading the charge against President Obama's Department of Justice nominees.

Considering that the JCN was founded "to ensure that the confirmation process for all judicial nominees is fair and that every nominee sent to the full Senate receives an up or down vote," I fail to understand how it has suddenly establish itself as the voice of the Right in opposing David Ogden, Elena Kagan, Dawn Johnsen, and Thomas Perrelli - especially since, until last summer, the organization had been entirely non-existent for more than a year. 

But somehow they have and now, on top of yesterday's ad in "Roll Call" blasting Sen. Pat Leahy for moving too quickly on these nominations, the JCN's Wendy Long has an op-ed in The Washington Times making the same points:

The hearing last Thursday on the appointment of David Ogden to be deputy attorney general - the spot just under Attorney General Eric Holder - showed the Obama-Leahy confirmation strategy for legal appointees whose views are far outside the American mainstream.

...

Don't expect any more transparency today, when Elena Kagan, the Obama nominee for Solicitor General, takes the stand. She has charmed many in the conservative legal community, particularly in the academic world, by hiring a couple of conservative law professors in her capacity as dean of Harvard Law School.

...

The list of far-left extremists poised to take over the Justice Department goes on: Dawn Johnsen, nominated to serve as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, worked at NARAL and the ACLU. She opposes even modest regulation of abortion, such as partial-birth abortion bans and parental notification for teenagers. She's argued that restrictions on abortion violate the Thirteenth Amendment, which banned slavery, because "forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest." Thomas Perrelli, nominated to be Assistant Attorney General, worked with the Florida ACLU to cut off basic food and water to Terri Schiavo, causing her to die, and later expressed disdain for the American people making laws through elected representatives that undo the work of legal extremists and activist courts.

President Obama promised "change" but has so far only nominated a slew of far-left activists to the Justice Department. If this is the change he believes in, President Obama will lose the support of the sensible moderates who voted for him.

The Right has a variety of these sorts of phony front groups who give themselves principled-sounding names and claim to represent thousands of grassroots activists, only to completely disappear once the issue on which they work is no longer on the front burner.  Anyone remember the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary? That one-woman "organization" hasn't so much as issued a press release since November 2006.

And the JCN appeared to be this same sort of group, spending millions of dollars to press for the confirmation of President Bush's judges and do away with the filibuster, only to more or less fall silent following the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito.  But then it suddenly popped-up against last summer and has slowly managed to establish itself as the leading voice of opposition to President Obama's DOJ nominees, thereby positioning itself as the go-to organization once the battle over judicial nominees heats up again.  

At some point, the Judicial Confirmation Network will change its name and mission statement once it realizes that its Bush-era "principles" are now direct conflict with its current work - but until then, we are stuck with the odd reality that a group created to ensure that the confirmation process was fair and efficient is now committed to obstructing that same process.

Once upon a time, it was an article of faith among right-wing groups that the President was entitled to deference regarding his choices to fill the various governmental positions, especially the cabinet and sub-cabinet positions, and it was the Senate's role merely to confirm or reject these nominees. 

Of course, that time just happened to coincide with President Bush's time in office ... and now that it has passed, so too apparently has that standard:

Thirty pro-life leaders and representatives of pro-life groups representing millions of Americans have authored a letter to Senate leaders opposing the fast-tracking of the next set of nominees. They say President Barack Obama has appointed people to key positions who are pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia.

According to the letter they provided to LifeNews.com, the groups are specifically opposed to Dawn Johnsen, David Ogden, and Thomas J. Perrelli, each of whom are top Justice Department picks.

Predictably, they are now concerned about the "politicization" of the Justice Department and demanding that these nominees face "serious deliberation" and be required to give "serious answers":

"If confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve in high offices within the Department of Justice, Dawn Johnsen, David Ogden, and Thomas J. Perrelli could have a dramatic impact on the state of this nation's legal order," the letter says.

"Each of these nominees has made public comments or has taken positions indicating strong support for a shift in national policy regarding the culture of life. Whatever one thinks of the culture of life, dramatic shifts in policy on such important national questions should not happen without serious deliberation ... [now] without any debate or discussion, the Obama Administration is putting forward an absolute political zealot from two of the nation's most Leftist groups."

...

The letter concludes by asking that ample time be given to question the nominees "and demand serious answers so that the American people can continue to play a part in defining the cultural fabric of our nation."

Some of the signers of the letter include representatives of the Family Research Council, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, Life Issues Institute, Eagle Forum, Thomas More Society, American Values, Heartbeat International, Presbyterians Pro-Life, Culture of Life Foundation and Human Life Alliance.

Isn't it amazing how, only after they have lost control of the government, the Right has suddenly started caring about checks and balances and the need for "serious deliberation"? 

Purely coincidental, I am sure.

The Washington Times reports that some on the right are upset about Thomas Perrelli being named  Associate Attorney General at the Department of Justice because he played a role in the Terri Schiavo debacle:

But his high-profile role in the Schiavo case in 2005 stirred instant vitriol among pro-life and socially conservative activists who ordinarily focus their energies on judicial nominees.

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, derided Mr. Perrelli's selection as "just another death-peddler Obama has added to his list of nominees." She said he's earned the nickname among pro-lifers of "Piranha Perrelli" for his work on the case.

Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council, said several end-of-life issues could make their way to the federal level in the next four years and having Mr. Perrelli at the department means pro-life causes would have a tougher time winning those debates.

"If the Justice Department isn't going to do anything about it, the states, what's to stop them from cases like Schiavo and even worse cases," Mr. McClusky said.

First of all, I wish that more papers would seek quotes from the Traditional Values Coalition because they are one of the few right-wing groups that willingly come across as radical and beligerent when given the opportunity to share their views.  Secondly, as Think Progress points out, if the Right thinks that they can make hay out of Perrelli's role in the Schiavo situation, they have apparently forgotten what a complete disaster that spectacle was for them:

Reviving the Schiavo case may not be the best decision. After all, 63 percent of the public supported the removal of the feeding tube. More importantly, 70 percent said it was inappropriate for the federal government to involve itself in the case, and 67 percent believed that these politicians were “trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.”