President Obama Signs Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Only moments ago, President Barack Obama, with Lilly Ledbetter at his side, officially signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act into law. This morning’s bill signing was historic on several levels. It was the first bill to be signed by our nation’s first African-American president, and was ushered through Congress with the help of the first female speaker of the House.

While this law is by no means an end to the struggle for equality, it is most certainly an exciting step, reversing the disastrous Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, and making it easier for workers to fight discrimination.

In a statement released this morning, AFJ President Nan Aron said “we owe a debt of enormous gratitude to Lilly Ledbetter. This woman from Gadsden, Alabama never gave up the fight, despite enormous odds and personal sacrifice. She stood up for millions of working Americans, even though she will not personally benefit from the law the bears her name…We thank Lilly for leading the way to fairness and justice for all.” It is, at long last, a new day in Washington.

Judiciary Committee Approves Holder Nomination

This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend confirmation of Eric Holder as the next attorney general to the full Senate. The 17-2 vote was historic in the sense that, if approved, Mr. Holder would be the first African American to serve as attorney general. The full Senate could vote on his nomination as early as tomorrow.

The two senators who voted against Mr. Holder’s nomination were Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). Oddly enough, both men were staunch supporters of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and criticized those Democrats who opposed his confirmation for supposedly putting politics ahead of governing.

In a statement released this morning, AFJ President Nan Aron said “Mr. Holder’s record and testimony demonstrate his independence, his fairness [and] his ability to serve the nation well as…attorney general. The full Senate should follow the example of their fair-minded colleagues on the Judiciary Committee who supported Eric Holder. Now is the time to stand up for the rule of law, the future of the Justice Department and the interest of the American people by confirming Eric Holder.”

Battle Rages for Soul of Justice

The Washington Post published an editorial today in which it praised President Obama’s nominees to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). While the OLC is not an office widely recognized by anyone outside of the beltway, its influence is enormous, and the nominees selected by the president show how serious he is about returning a sense of openness and justice to the department that bears its name.

The OLC under the Bush administration was the source of many of the now-infamous torture memos, which were used to provide legal cover to those who believed that “enhanced interrogation” techniques were crucial to our national security. Dawn Johnsen, who served as acting assistant attorney general in the OLC under President Clinton, was one of the most vocal critics of the transformation of that office under President Bush. Her selection to lead the OLC now shows just how different the new president’s approach will be.

Oddly enough however, some Republicans are using her statements opposing the OLC torture memos and the office’s general tendency towards secrecy as reason to grandstand over her nomination. Interestingly, when the president announced Ms. Johnsen’s nomination, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee -- which plays no role in the confirming of presidential nominees -- said that he had “significant concerns considering her position on the intelligence community’s ability to conduct interrogations and critical, time-sensitive intelligence to prevent terrorist attacks.”

Ms. Johnsen’s confirmation hearing is not scheduled to take place for another month, but considering the stall tactics faced by Eric Holder, President Obama’s choice for attorney general, we aren’t holding our breath that hers will be a smooth one. We’ll be sure to keep you updated on her and other nominees’ hearings.

Court Says ‘No’ to Employer Retaliation

Well, 2009 is certainly off to a great start for working women. The House and the Senate have both passed versions of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which will help ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work. And today, the Supreme Court released its decision in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, which stated that an employee is protected by Title VII from retaliation by his or her employer when cooperating with an internal discrimination investigation.

Vicky Crawford was fired after she answered questions in an internal investigation regarding the conduct of Gene Hughes, the Metro School District’s employee relations director. She told a human resources officer that she had been sexually harassed by Hughes, who, among other things, repeatedly grabbed his crotch in front of her. While the Metro government took no action against Mr. Hughes, Ms. Crawford was fired soon after the investigation was completed.

Writing for the majority, Justice David Souter said that “the question here [was] whether this protection extends to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on her own initiative, but in answering questions during an employer's internal investigation. We hold that it does.” In a statement released today, AFJ President Nan Aron said “Today’s decision is a victory for workers in the ongoing fight for equality in the workplace. The Court recognized that the law serves to protect those who stand up against discrimination, rather than shield those who stoop to retaliation.”

Obama’s Intelligence Pick Calls for Gitmo Closure

Obama’s director of national intelligence nominee, retired Admiral Dennis Blair, agreed with the new president’s assertion that the detention camp at Guantanamo should be closed. Responding to questions at his Senate confirmation hearing, Adm. Blair suggested that his position on the treatment of detainees was different from the view of the Bush administration. According to Reuters, the president’s choice for spy chief broke with the Bush administration’s view that the CIA should have special authority, stating that “treatment standards for…suspects must apply thought the government.”

Referring to the damage President Bush’s detention policies have done to America’s image abroad, specifically the facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Adm. Blair said “I agree with the president that the detention center at Guantanamo has become a damaging symbol to the world and that it must be closed.” He went on to assert that “there must be clear standards for humane treatment that apply to all agencies of U.S. government, including the intelligence community.” Sounds like Adm. Blair is off to a promising start.

Obama Suspends Military Commissions

Already making good on his rejection in yesterday’s inauguration speech of the false “choice between our safety and our ideals,” President Barack Obama put a halt to the system of military commissions in Guantanamo Bay last night, issuing the order on his first day as president of the United States.

The order, filed on behalf of the president by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, stated that the suspension of tribunals was meant to provide “the newly inaugurated president and his administration time to review the military commission process, generally, and the cases currently pending before the military commissions, specifically.”

While President Obama had made clear his intentions to close the detention facility at Guantanamo both during his campaign and after his election, it was unclear when and how he would do so. Finding a way out of the legal black hole created by President Bush is no easy task. Still, yesterday’s order is a promising start.

***
In other Guantanamo news, President Obama has selected former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias -- the man whose tenure as Navy defense lawyer inspired the film A Few Good Men -- to serve as the government’s chief prosecutor at Guantanamo. Mr. Iglesias made headlines in 2006, as one of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration for political reasons. .

Senate Moves Closer to Passing Ledbetter Bill

Yesterday, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass cloture on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The cloture motion passed 72-23, with the bill’s sponsor Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) hoping that it could be the first to be signed into law by President-elect Barack Obama. Still, there are still serious roadblocks to the passage of this important bill. While Senate Republicans, under the leadership of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), did not filibuster, it is widely expected that they will attempt to amend the legislation to include pro-business language – effectively weakening protections for victims of discrimination.

In a statement yesterday, Senate Minority Leader McConnell said that the bill’s “primary beneficiaries are lawyers who want to squeeze a major settlement out of every company that fears the expense or the publicity of going to court.” Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who introduced so-called compromise legislation last year, is expected to try to include similar language in an amendment. Citing the business community’s fear of a “catastrophic increase in legal costs,” Sen. Hutchison is not happy with the bill in its current form.

In truth however, this bill would do little damage to corporations, but instead provide a basic level of protection for workers to help ensure fair treatment. In fact, all this legislation would do is restore the law to where it stood before the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision. This bill simply officially accepts the decades-old interpretation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and most appellate courts of Title VII’s statute of limitations. It was the Court’s decision two years ago that set what amounts to a new time-limit for bringing discrimination claims.

The language that Sen. Hutchison intends to include would effectively cripple the bill’s protections for victims of pay discrimination. Instead of stating that each discriminatory paycheck counts as a distinct illegal act, restarting the 180-day clock to file suit, Sen. Hutchison would state that the employee would have 180 days from the time he or she knew, or should have known, that they were victims of discrimination. This amendment would essentially place the burden of proof entirely on the shoulders of the injured party, who would be forced to prove that he or she had no way of knowing that they had been victims of discrimination. Most offices discourage discussion and comparison of salaries among coworkers.

We hope that any efforts by Senate Republicans to water down this crucial bill will, in the end, prove unsuccessful. Supporters of fair pay have been fighting for almost two years for this legislation, and must not let up now. We will be sure to keep you updated on any developments in this important struggle.

Overview of Eric Holder Confirmation Hearing: First Session

Alliance for Justice has released an overview of this morning's Senate Judiciary Committee session on the nomination of Eric Holder to be attorney general.

This morning's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Eric Holder to be the Attorney General of the United States was a refreshing glimpse of a return to the rule of law at the Department of Justice and restoration of the Department's tarnished reputation and damaged integrity. Mr. Holder offered reassuring responses on a number of critical issues facing the Department:

Role of the Attorney General

• Views role of the attorney general as, first and foremost, "the People's lawyer."
• Recognizes that the attorney general is a unique member of the president's cabinet who must maintain a measure of distance and independence from the president.
• That the Constitution and the law of the land will be Mr. Holder's guiding light as attorney general, rather than the president's directives.
• Understands that the attorney general must not only defend the country from terrorism, but must also use his role to protect the environment, consumer safety and against economic fraud and white collar crime.

War on Terror Policies

• Unlike outgoing Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Mr. Holder clearly stated that waterboarding is torture. Holder also expressed approval of returning to the Army Field Manual as a guide to interrogation, which was the standard method prior to the Bush administration.
• Stated that the Guantanamo detention center will be closed. And, as attorney general, he will work to bring swift justice to the 250 detainees who are currently being held there.
• Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Holder made clear that in dealing with all individuals captured in the War on Terror, the United States will abide by the relevant international treaties to which we are a signatory.
• Noted that we must be mindful that there is always a civil liberties component to criminal justice matters, and it is a false choice to suggest that we must choose between the two.

Presidential Power

• Lamented President Bush's failure to obtain congressional authorization for warrantless wiretapping.
• Rejected the notion, advanced repeatedly by Bush administration operatives, that the president has the authority to override statutes enacted by Congress. Rejecting the theory of a unitary executive, he vowed to work with Congress and to make transparency a priority under this tenure.
• Promised to undertake a comprehensive review of opinions issued by the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, many of which remain secret.

Restoring the Department of Justice

• Promised to assess the damage done to the Department of Justice by rank politicization under Attorneys General Ashcroft and Gonzales.
• Will devote special attention to the Civil Rights Division. Citing a recent report released by the Inspector General detailing the highly partisan activities occurring in the Division under the Bush administration, he urged a return to the days when the rule of law reigned supreme. He promised to appoint individuals who would uphold the thrust of civil rights law, rather than use the department to thwart and circumvent the very purposes for which the laws were passed.

This overview is also available on our website at: http://www.afj.org/about-afj/press/01152009_2.html.

More Examples of Politicized Justice Surface

As the Senate Judiciary Committee holds its hearing on the nomination of Eric Holder as attorney general, revelations of just how politicized the Justice Department has been under President George W. Bush continue to surface. Ironically, the same members of the SJC who are questioning Mr. Holder’s independence are the same senators who supported the nomination of Alberto Gonzales, and sat idly by for years as the department, under his leadership, fell apart.

David Savage of the Los Angeles Times is reporting that Bradley Schlozman, who was appointed by Bush to head up the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Section, spent three years systematically driving out career attorneys. In a 2003 email, Mr. Schlozman wrote “My tentative plans are to gerrymander all of these crazy libs right out of the section…I too get to work with mold spores, but here in Civil Rights, we call them Voting Section attorneys.” He referred to Democrats and liberals in general as “disloyal,” and wrote that he hoped to replace them with “real Americans.”

Probably the most disturbing of his exchanges, came in 2004 in emails with then Voting Section Chief John Tanner. When Mr. Schlozman asked Mr. Tanner how he liked his coffee, Mr. Tanner replied, “Mary Frances Berry style – black and bitter.” Mr. Tanner was referring to Mary Berry, the African American woman who led the U.S. Civil rights Commission from 1993 to 2004. Mr. Schlozman, the head of the Civil Rights division, was so amused by Mr. Tanner’s response that he forwarded it to his colleagues, saying “Y’all will appreciate Tanner’s response.”

Unfortunately for the department, it seems that Mr. Schlozman was extremely successful in weeding out career attorneys with Democratic affiliations. According to an inspector general’s report released yesterday, 63 of the 65 lawyers hired by Mr. Schlozman had “Republican or conservative credentials.” Considering the damage done by those DOJ appointees supported by SJC Republicans, it seems rather ridiculous that they would try to fight so hard against the nomination of a man like Eric Holder. Let’s hope Mr. Holder makes it through today’s hearing quickly, so that he can begin repairing the damage done to the department as soon as possible.

Case against Guantanamo Man Criticized by Former Prosecutor

New developments in the case against Mohammed Jawad, Guantanamo detainee and victim of torture: a former military prosecutor filed an affidavit in support of Mr. Jawad’s defense, arguing, according to the Washington Post, “the system of handling evidence…at Guantanamo is so chaotic…it is impossible to prepare a fair and successful prosecution.” Darrel Vandeveld was lead prosecutor against Jawad until he quit last year. Apparently he didn’t feel right about the government’s case, causing what the Post describes as a “crisis of conscience.” Now he serves as senior deputy attorney general in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Vandeveld provided his statement yesterday, hoping that the government would release Jawad, who was a minor at the time he was detained in Afghanistan. Vandeveld told the Post in a phone interview that “the ‘complete lack of organization’ has affected nearly all cases at Guantanamo” and “evidence is often so disorganized, ‘it was like a stash of documents found in a village [were] just put on a plane to the U.S. [without] even rudimentary organization by date or name.”

Government and military officials disputed Mr. Vandeveld’s accusations. In a statement to the Post, Col. Lawrence Morris said that Mr. Vandeveld “was disappointed when [Col. Morris] did not choose him to become a team leader, and asked to resign shortly thereafter, never having raised an ethical concern.” Col. Morris went on to say that Mr. Vandeveld supported the military’s position on all its cases against detainees, including “a 40-year sentence for Mr. Jawad”, for which he’d advocated “the week before he departed.”

Whether or not Mr. Vandeveld actually raised ethical concerns during his tenure as prosecutor, it seems that his statements now would raise serious concerns -- well, even more serious concerns --about the entire process of military tribunals set up at Guantanamo, or at a minimum the case against Jawad. How can the government possibly proceed with its case against a man who was arrested as a juvenile, tortured, and sent to Guantanamo Bay to rot for six years, especially when his own prosecutors say that the case is dubious? We can only hope that when President-elect Obama takes office next week, he will address these issues straight away.

Government Asks Judge to Allow Confession Obtained Through Torture

In his last formal press conference as president yesterday, George Bush defended his detention policies and his broader efforts in the “War on Terror.” Despite pointed questions from reporters on the subject, and assurances from President-elect Obama that he will move quickly to shut down Guantanamo, the Bush administration seemed determined to push ahead with its controversial military tribunals until his last day in office.

According to the Associated Press, the government is asking a federal court to overturn a military judge’s decision to toss a confession because it was obtained through torture. Mohammed Jawad, who was arrested at the tender age of 16, faced threats against his and his family’s lives by Afghan police forces. After being transferred to U.S. custody, he was blindfolded and had a bag placed over his head. As a result of this treatment the judge presiding over his tribunal, Army Col. Stephen Henley through out his confession.

Apparently not concerned with the message that torturing a minor sends, the Bush administration continues to argue that his confession should stand – hoping to convict one more terror suspect before President-elect Obama takes office. Ironically, the Military Commissions Act itself, pushed through by the president and his allies before Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, prohibits the use of statements obtained through torture. Still, the government is moving forward with its request. It seems that even reflecting on his own legacy hasn’t helped Bush to grasp the damage he’s done to our nation’s system of justice.

Anticipation Builds as Holder Hearing Looms

As Eric Holder, President-elect Barack Obama’s selection for the post of attorney general, prepares for his Senate hearing on Thursday, political rags are reeling with predictions both for his confirmation hearing and his goals for the Justice Department. While many hope that Holder’s leadership will put an end to the partisan turmoil that has plagued the Justice Department during the Bush administration, his nomination has done the opposite in the Senate, dividing senators along party lines.

The Legal Times published an article today titled “The Dozen Things to Watch at Holder’s Hearing.” The piece’s authors, Joe Palazzolo and David Ingram, suggest that while the nomination should make it through the upper chamber eventually, there will be plenty of partisan fodder in the meantime. Among their several predictions (actually a dozen, as their title would suggest), the men suggest that Republicans in the Senate, many of whom did battle with Holder during the Clinton administration, will be looking to take their revenge during Thursday’s hearing.

Once he makes it through what, by all accounts, will be a tough confirmation process though, Holder has a whole new set of challenges ahead of him. The three men in charge of the DOJ during Bush’s two terms managed to make an art form of tearing down the once revered institution. After eight years of partisan turmoil, Holder has a lot of work to do if he hopes to restore the department’s tattered image. An article in Saturday’s National Journal (subscription required) broke down just what needs to be done.

In a rather amusing example of literary flare, National Journal reporter Peter Stone compared the work to be done at Justice with the exploits of the mythological Hercules. “To accomplish the fifth of his mythological labors, Hercules needed just one day to clean up the mess in the Augean stables. Former high-level government officials and other experts say that it will take the next attorney general much longer to do the same at the Justice Department, badly soiled by scandal during the Bush administration.” Let’s hope he’s up to the task.

WSJ Spreads Lies about Fair Pay Legislation

We suppose that in these uncertain times, consistency can be a comfort. But when it comes to the Wall Street Journal’s reliably conservative take on issues like fair pay, it can be down right infuriating. In an editorial published today, the Journal takes to task Democrats who are trying to pass legislation that would ensure women receive equal pay for equal work – an issue whose importance was pushed to the front of our nation’s consciousness after the Supreme Court’s disgraceful decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire.

The Journal accuses Democrats of offering the legislation (the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act) as a gift to trial lawyers, the most insidious of groups in the eyes of conservatives, not to mention their favorite scapegoat. Of course, we could just as easily suggest that conservative opposition to these bills is merely an attempt to appease the all powerful business lobby, a beloved ally (and reliable donor base) for Republicans across the country. But, we’ll try our best to take the high road.

Still, we thought it was important to clear up some facts. Let’s start with the Journal’s disingenuous assertion that Ms. Ledbetter’s lawsuit was based on her own “creative theory” that “each paycheck was a new discriminatory act and thus fell within the statute of limitations” laid out in Title VII. Actually, and we’re sure that the Journal’s editorial board is well aware, this “creative theory” has actually been the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s interpretation of Title VII for several decades. This view was upheld by the Supreme Court itself in Bazemore v. Friday. This was by no means an attempt by some wily litigant to get around a well-defined statue of limitations.

What’s more, the 180 day cut off espoused by conservatives (who would prefer to reinterpret the 35 year-old Civil Rights Act), is completely unreasonable, and unduly burdens employees of any minority group. How are workers supposed to know when they are being paid less than their colleagues? While it would certainly make things easier if employers voluntarily alerted employees of discrimination, something tells us that this is unlikely. Indeed, in Ms. Ledbetter’s case, Goodyear policy mandated that employees not disclose their salaries to coworkers. It wasn’t until she received an anonymous note that Ms. Ledbetter even knew what was going on.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act have nothing to do with trial lawyers, despite conservatives’ collective assurances. Instead, it is a matter of fundamental fairness. It is also not an attempt by Democrats to change a law to make litigation easier, but rather attempts by fair-minded legislators to remedy a terrible Supreme Court decision that tossed aside decades of precedent. We can only hope that enough Republicans realize the importance of these bills and join Democrats in demanding that gender and race have no bearing on a person’s pay. After all, equality is the founding principle of our country.

Update: as of 1:12pm Eastern Time, the House has passed both the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act! It is now up to the Senate to take action on this important legislation.

House to Vote on Paycheck Fairness

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote tomorrow on two bills that would help mitigate the damage done by the disgraceful Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire. As many of you will remember, Lilly Ledbetter worked for 19 years in a Goodyear plant in Gadsden, Alabama. After years of loyal service to the company, she discovered that she had consistently earned less than men doing the same work. Naturally, she sued. But the Supreme Court, with its newly conservative majority, threw out her case, arguing that Title VII -- the portion of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination -- said she only had 180 days from the time she got her first discriminatory paycheck to file suit.

Outrage over this decision, which all but gutted the ability to enforce Title VII, was widespread, and regularly came up during the campaign. Slogans calling for “equal pay for equal work” could be heard at rallies throughout the country. Congress attempted to offer a legislative fix in the form of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act last year, but the bill was stalled by Senate Republicans who were looking out for big business's bottom line, rather than the interests of working Americans. Now, with a new Democratic majority, Congress is once again attempting to resolve this issue. And not at all too soon.

In the less than two years since the Court’s decision in Ledbetter, the case has been cited 326 times in other federal cases. Workers across the country are finding it increasingly difficult to establish discrimination, which was already extremely tough to prove. Alliance for Justice has been urging Congress to take action for over a year, and we are hopeful that this next round of votes will lead to success. But, we could use your help. Please write your representative today, and tell them to vote yes on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act by clicking here.

Preemption Rears Its Ugly Head -- Again.

Imagine if a young mother from Pennsylvania were hit by a car while her child watched. Or a grandfather from Kansas. Maybe a musician from Vermont. Just because the driver of that car had a license wouldn’t mean that he couldn’t be held accountable for the injuries he caused those innocent people, right?

Well, that’s just the kind of argument that medical device and a drug companies are making when it comes to avoiding responsibility when their products injure Americans. Just ask Pennsylvania mom Bridgett Robb, Kansas grandfather Earl Hickey and Vermont musician Diana Levine, all of whom have suffered injuries due to drugs or medical devices.

Robb and Hickey were shocked by an implanted defibrillator made by device manufacturer Medtronic. Unfortunately for them, Medtronic was already cleared from liability by a 2008 Supreme Court decision stating that because the Food and Drug Administration had approved the device, the company could not be sued for injuries caused by defects in the device.

A story in today’s Wall Street Journal reiterated the devastating effects that this decision has had on consumers. A federal judge in Minnesota was forced to throw out a case involving thousands of patients who were hurt by faulty defibrillators. Though the judge recognized the devices’ danger, he said that last year’s Supreme Court decision left him no choice but to dismiss the suit. Clearly uncomfortable with the decision, he wrote that the court was “not unsympathetic to [the plaintiffs’] plight,” but that their only remedy now “lies in Congress.”

A similar case involving drug manufacturers, Wyeth v. Levine, is currently being considered by the Supreme Court. Considering the willingness of the Court to grant immunity to medical device manufacturers, the likelihood of the justices holding drug companies responsible seems frighteningly low.

While those already harmed by these products are left with little recourse, there is still hope for the rest of us. Congress can fix these bad decisions by passing legislation that allows state tort law to act, as it has for hundreds of years, as a supplement to federal product regulation. In fact, a bill has already been introduced in Congress to remedy last years Medtronic decision. The Medical Device Safety Act would ensure that just because the FDA approves these devices, their manufacturers aren’t relieved of responsibility for their safety.

Conservatives Blast Obama’s DOJ Nominees

It sure didn’t take long for Republican criticism of President-elect Obama’s high-level Justice Department appointments to heat up. Yesterday, the soon-to-be-president announced that he has selected David Ogden, Elena Kagan, Thomas Perrelli and Dawn Johnsen to fill the posts of deputy attorney general, solicitor general, associate attorney general and assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel respectively.

While Democrats and progressives around the country hailed the appointments as proof that President-elect Obama is serious about restoring the rule of law to the ailing department, conservatives wasted no time in lambasting them.

According to an article in the Washington Times, anti-choice activists were furious with the president-elect’s selection of Thomas Perrelli as associate attorney general. It seems that his involvement in the 2005 Terri Schiavo case is still enough to draw the ire of social conservatives.

The always mellow Andrea Lafferty of the Tradition Values Coalition dismissed Perrelli’s legal acumen suggesting that he is nothing more than a “death-peddler” and Family Research Council’s Tom McClusky was concerned that he wouldn’t intervene in states where issues like Schiavo’s arise. Of course, many would argue that it is not the place of the Justice Department to intervene in matters such as these, but we’ll move on.

But the nominee receiving the brunt of the right’s criticism is Ms. Johnsen. Having been a vocal opponent of the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation policies, many conservatives are now using that as a reason to oppose her nomination.

Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee Lamar Smith (R-TX) said that her position on interrogation policies “raises significant concerns…[for] the intelligence community’s ability to conduct interrogations and gather critical, time-sensitive intelligence to prevent terrorist attacks.” Who knew that respect for the Constitution and international norms on torture could disqualify you for a position in the Justice Department in the eyes of some. It’s certainly been a long and strange eight years.

Obama Taps First Woman to Be Solicitor General

President-elect Barack Obama has announced more of his picks to fill top posts at the Justice Department. While he announced his historic nomination of Eric Holder to serve as the first African-American attorney general last month, on-lookers from the legal community were eagerly awaiting word on who he’d select to fill other high-level department posts. Well, news broke today that the president-elect would continue making history by selecting Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan to serve as solicitor general.

Ms. Kagan is certainly no stranger to shattering glass ceilings. In 2003, she became the first woman in history to serve as dean of Harvard Law School. She also comes with an impressive legal background. Having graduated from Harvard Law herself, Ms. Kagan went on to clerk for Judge Abner Mikva of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court. She served as law professor at University of Chicago Law School and was nominated by President Bill Clinton to fill a vacancy on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999. Unfortunately, her nomination stalled in the Judiciary Committee -- President Bush later named now-Chief Justice John Roberts to fill the vacancy to which she’d been nominated.

President-elect Obama also named David Ogden as deputy attorney general, Tom Perrelli as associate attorney general and Dawn Johnson as assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel. In a statement today, the president-elect said that “these individuals bring the integrity, depth of experience and tenacity that the Department of Justice demands in these uncertain times.” Sounds like a much-needed breath of fresh air for a department that has been plagued by hyper-partisanship for the last eight years.