Elephants lined up weathervane via blackforgeart.

All signs point to yes.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline has been the point man for the Federalist Society talking points on Johnsen’s nomination. And he recently went with the inaccurate hyperventilation technique here:

…Dawn Johnsen, President Obama’s aggressively radical nominee…

Note that for Paul, John Yoo and David Addington are jim dandy, and a government which willfully lies to you about violating the laws and your civil rights is a-okay.  But Dawn Johnsen? She’s "aggressively radical."

So much for adherence to the rule of law when it undermines one’s politics, I suppose.

Why the new spate of snarl at Johnsen? Because instead of sitting around twiddling her thumbs while waiting for the rule of law to become a priority for Harry Reid and the Obama White House, she’s teaching a course this fall at Indiana University Law school. Presumably because she’d like to earn a bit of salary for her family, which she moved to Washington while awaiting a confirmation vote that still has not yet been scheduled in the Senate. She may not have a confirmation vote in hand just yet, but she does need to feed her kids and pay her rent.

Guess that whole work ethic thing is less popular with GOP spinmeisters these days.

Why the knickers in a twist? Could it be the course? As initially reported at Blue Indiana, theLegal Times Blog has the background:

The seminar, which Johnsen has taught before, is aimed at 2Ls and 3Ls. It’s titled “Sexuality, Reproduction and the Law.” According to the course description, students will “explore governmental regulation of sexuality and reproduction in the United States. We will focus on regulation aimed at sexual activity, reproduction and sexual orientation, with particular attention to the constitutional protections afforded in those areas.”

Never mind that students came to Johnsen’s defense once before after right-wing smear attempts, saying about her teaching style: "Johnsen’s incredibly fair, intelligent and scholarly outlook, combined with her constant interest in hearing all viewpoints, made class both fascinating and a true learning environment."

Damn her, she made her students actually think! Evil! 

But why bother with facts when you can smear you way forward?  Never fear, dear readers. The Democratic leadership has this well in hand. (more…)

Gotta love that Tiffany blue via minxlj. Nice shot!

What do you get when you cross political hacks, rules and regs that aren’t respected and a disregarded sense of ethics and the rule of law?

A big fat continuing headache at the DOJ, that’s what:

The eight named plaintiffs, who purportedly represent a class of hundreds of similarly situated plaintiffs, maintain Justice based hiring decisions on the candidates’ liberal political and professional affiliations. Justice officials found and printed information from web sites about the candidates. Hundreds of applicants were turned down in 2002 and 2006 by political appointees. A motion for class certification is pending.

The defendants, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, want the suit tossed. Judge John Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard argument today for more than two hours. He did not rule from the bench.

This is a ginormous mess.  Not least of which because the Obama folks at DOJ are trying to simultaneously sort out and clean up the detritus leftover from the Bush years, while also having to defend the DOJ’s reputation.  All the while not condoning the prior craptastic behavior.

Which means current DOJ attorneys have to stand there in open court and apologize profusely, decrying actions taken not by them, but by their predecessors over whom they had no supervisory control.

And, in this case, also having a highly detailed OIG report (PDF) on each and every inappropriate action in hand.

Judge Bates, who presides over this mess, said outright in court that the political vetting by Bush DOJ appointees was "deplorable." Given that Judge Bates was a Deputy Independent Counsel with Ken Starr and a W appointee, that gives you a taste of how bad things really were at DOJ given the evidence presented thus far. (more…)

Run aground? via marcelgermain.

Feeling a little run aground today? Join the club. 

Here’s a round-up of the legal news that’s catching my eyes at this point:

– Missed this somehow:  ABA had a reporter’s shield law discussion at their annual convention, featuring Pat Fitzgerald and Reggie Walton among others on a panel discussion.  Interesting back and forth.  Here’s a report from the local ABA branch on the proceedings. And a write-up from Legal Times.

– Dick Armey pulls out the Popeye defense: "I yam what I yam." I’m sure his former partners at Piper really appreciate that after the client relations damage has already been done.

– Is Kyle Sampson still having difficulty — after a year of trying to become a member of the DC bar? Gee, wonder why they’d have any concerns about his fitness of character or any potential outstanding legal difficulties which might pose problems for entry. How’s protecting Rove’s flank working for you now, Kyle?

– Lyle at SCOTUSblog says that Mitch McConnell is trying to shoehorn his way into Citizens United arguments, but that Citizens United is resisting. That could be an interesting struggle. Heather Gerken has commentary at Balkinization on the Citizens United case, and how an expedited briefing schedule is not so helpful when you have first amendment jurisprudence at stake.

– ACLU is trying to shine more light on detainees at Bagram. Good on them.

– File this under awkward cocktail weenies. John Rizzo attended the the Red Cross-sponsored soiree honoring the Geneva Conventions.

– A little background on Judge Vaughn Walker. Always interesting to get a glimpse of the human being wearing the robes.

Several days ago, counsel for five Uighur detainees filed a motion to stay a recent Circuit Court decision which upheld broad governmental powers in transferring detainees without third party review by the courts.

The stay is requested pending their appeal of that order to the SCOTUS. SCOTUSblog has helpfully posted the full brief in PDF form.

US Constitution via kjd.

This afternoon’s panel was a great discussion, and I enjoyed being a part of the mix. For folks who missed it, C-Span has it available on their website.

We had initially thought about beginning with an opening statement from everyone, but decided that doing a more interactive opening question would be better.

I’ve just been told that my panel will be broadcast live on C-Span this afternoon. It will begin sat 3 pm ET. Thought folks would want a heads up.

Later this evening, when I’m not typing from Marcy’s little laptop, I’ll post a copy of my opening statement for folks who won’t be able to watch.

In my first sweep through the DOJ firings docudump, I’m not finding any answers to a question that I posed to David Iglesias during his book salon.

And I’d looooove to know the answer.It’s John Anderson’s fault. When I was reading his fabu book, Follow The Money, I noticed a cryptic note about some Rove tactical maneuvering that stuck in my mind.The tidbit in a footnote on page 277:

With the recent release of a myriad of e-mails, documents and breathy reportage and leakage, it’s no wonder that Rove and Gold Bars Luskin tried to get themselves out in front of the wave by giving multiple “exclusives.” Oxymorons notwithstanding, when you have bad PR coming your way, it’s always better to stand in front of it shouting “look, over there!”

It’s like the dogs in Up.