After the State of the Union when President Obama criticized Republican Senators for obstructionism, saying “The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators.” We have decided to start a new series titled “American Idle” chronicling the nominees who have been or are currently being held hostage in the Senate.
On Wednesday, Alliance for Justice blasted Senate Republicans for holding hostage a highly qualified and uncontroversial nominee. Unopposed in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Joseph Greenaway was nominated by President Obama to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal on June 19, 2009. A "hold" has been placed on his nomination.
Before his appointment to the United States District Court in New Jersey by President Clinton in 1995, Greenaway served as a litigator, prosecutor and in-house counsel. While on the federal bench, Judge Greenaway amassed a record and a reputation for taking the facts of each case one by one, without professing allegiance to a larger interpretational framework or ideology, and a willingness to both examine the nuances of individual cases and engage larger constitutional issues.
If confirmed, Judge Greenaway would be only the 15th judge confirmed since the beginning of this Congress.
Although President Obama has nominated highly qualified attorneys and judges to the federal bench, Republicans have consistently responded by either delaying the votes or outright attacking individual nominees. Republican senators have threatened filibusters or used the practice of putting a “hold” on a nominee to prevent up-or-down votes from taking place.
To his credit, Senator Leahy (D-VT), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has held prompt hearings on all of President Obama’s nominees. But, as a result of abandoning the tradition of challenging only highly controversial nominations, Republicans indefinitely blocked votes on the floor even though many nominees were reported out of committee months earlier. Complicating matters further, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), struggled to find the floor time needed to overcome filibuster threats, which take an entire day of Senate floor time, while the Chamber was mired in health care reform.
By the end of December, the Senate had voted on only 13 nominees. By comparison, in President George W. Bush’s first 17 months, the Democratically-controlled Senate, with Senator Leahy chairing the Judiciary Committee, confirmed 100 nominees.
Republicans are abusing Senate rules and are again putting politics ahead of placing qualified judges who will uphold our constitutional values on our nation's courts. It is time for Republicans to put the needs of Americans above their partisan politics, their hypocrisy has already delayed justice for too long.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Ending an Era of Minority-Rule
Guest Post: By Chris Cassidy, Assistant Director of Communications, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. The views expressed here are solely attributable to Cassidy.
Intra-party struggles, the Bush recession, sharp departures from our commitments to international and domestic law -- none of these developments even competes with the impact of the modern filibuster on American politics.
After winning the White House and amassing super-majorities in both houses of Congress, reforms are creeping through legislative channels at a perilously slow pace. With the bipartisan support of her home state's senators, Dawn Johnsen's nomination remains stalled over a year since being announced. Meanwhile the majority party seems on the verge of panicking over mid-term elections which may leave them with only 54 seats in the Senate.
Yes, 54 seats in the Senate would still be a majority. Yes, 54 seats used to be enough to move nominations and legislation. No, this is not a joke.
These are the very serious consequences of a parliamentary procedure run amok. In the 1950s, filibusters were invoked just once per Congress, on average. In the last Congress, there were 139.
With Republicans feverishly invoking the filibuster at every turn, there has been no shortage of suggestions for how to reform Senate rules to empower legislators to legislate. I do not jump onto the bandwagon calling for reform without hesitation, however. Let's not leave recent Democratic filibusters unacknowledged.
There is something to be said for a system that permits the minority party to moderate judicial nominations. For instance, though used considerably less then, the filibuster proved useful in blocking extremists nominated to the federal bench by President George W. Bush.
But blocking extremists doesn't seem to be the prerogative of today's Republican Senators.
President Obama's nomination of Judge David Hamilton for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was almost universally welcomed as a gesture towards bipartisanship. Hamilton's moderate credentials earned him the support of Republican Senator Richard Lugar as well as the head of the Federalist Society's Indianapolis chapter. With Senator Jeff Sessions leading the way, however, Senate Republicans launched an effort to block Hamilton's nomination, citing one month that he worked with ACORN in 1979 and shamelessly distorting his distinguished judicial record.
The question remains: How do we eliminate knee-jerk filibusters of every legislation and nominee, while preserving the legitimate, counter-majoritarian purpose that the filibuster once served.
A solution may be on the way to the Senate floor as we speak. Sen. Tom Harkin has indicated that, in the coming weeks, he will re-introduce a bill that would change Senate rules to end the minority party's veto power, while preserving their ability to delay Senate action and inform the public debate.
Harkin's bill would permit a filibuster for a fixed period of time until it could be overcome by 57 votes. Should this be insufficient, debate would continue until the time limit is again reached, and cloture could be invoked by 54 senators. Eventually, 51 senators could pass legislation or advance nominations.
Senator Harkin initially proposed the bill in 1995, when he and his fellow Democrats were in the minority. This time, though, he hopes that the devastating gridlock on Capitol Hill will move his fellow senators to action.
While the chances for Harkin's bill remain unclear -- it would require 67 votes to change Senate rules -- the public interest would clearly be best served by bringing an end to the era of minority rule in which we find ourselves. The alternative is that each administration, whether Democrat or Republican, risks becoming a placeholder incapable of legislating or filling judicial and executive vacancies. The American people deserve better, but we will not be extended change without demanding it.
Intra-party struggles, the Bush recession, sharp departures from our commitments to international and domestic law -- none of these developments even competes with the impact of the modern filibuster on American politics.
After winning the White House and amassing super-majorities in both houses of Congress, reforms are creeping through legislative channels at a perilously slow pace. With the bipartisan support of her home state's senators, Dawn Johnsen's nomination remains stalled over a year since being announced. Meanwhile the majority party seems on the verge of panicking over mid-term elections which may leave them with only 54 seats in the Senate.
Yes, 54 seats in the Senate would still be a majority. Yes, 54 seats used to be enough to move nominations and legislation. No, this is not a joke.
These are the very serious consequences of a parliamentary procedure run amok. In the 1950s, filibusters were invoked just once per Congress, on average. In the last Congress, there were 139.
With Republicans feverishly invoking the filibuster at every turn, there has been no shortage of suggestions for how to reform Senate rules to empower legislators to legislate. I do not jump onto the bandwagon calling for reform without hesitation, however. Let's not leave recent Democratic filibusters unacknowledged.
There is something to be said for a system that permits the minority party to moderate judicial nominations. For instance, though used considerably less then, the filibuster proved useful in blocking extremists nominated to the federal bench by President George W. Bush.
But blocking extremists doesn't seem to be the prerogative of today's Republican Senators.
President Obama's nomination of Judge David Hamilton for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was almost universally welcomed as a gesture towards bipartisanship. Hamilton's moderate credentials earned him the support of Republican Senator Richard Lugar as well as the head of the Federalist Society's Indianapolis chapter. With Senator Jeff Sessions leading the way, however, Senate Republicans launched an effort to block Hamilton's nomination, citing one month that he worked with ACORN in 1979 and shamelessly distorting his distinguished judicial record.
The question remains: How do we eliminate knee-jerk filibusters of every legislation and nominee, while preserving the legitimate, counter-majoritarian purpose that the filibuster once served.
A solution may be on the way to the Senate floor as we speak. Sen. Tom Harkin has indicated that, in the coming weeks, he will re-introduce a bill that would change Senate rules to end the minority party's veto power, while preserving their ability to delay Senate action and inform the public debate.
Harkin's bill would permit a filibuster for a fixed period of time until it could be overcome by 57 votes. Should this be insufficient, debate would continue until the time limit is again reached, and cloture could be invoked by 54 senators. Eventually, 51 senators could pass legislation or advance nominations.
Senator Harkin initially proposed the bill in 1995, when he and his fellow Democrats were in the minority. This time, though, he hopes that the devastating gridlock on Capitol Hill will move his fellow senators to action.
While the chances for Harkin's bill remain unclear -- it would require 67 votes to change Senate rules -- the public interest would clearly be best served by bringing an end to the era of minority rule in which we find ourselves. The alternative is that each administration, whether Democrat or Republican, risks becoming a placeholder incapable of legislating or filling judicial and executive vacancies. The American people deserve better, but we will not be extended change without demanding it.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
When Will Guantanamo be Closed?
A year after President Obama signed Executive Orders ending torture and ordering the closure of the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in the wake of the attempted Christmas Day bombing, four retired generals gathered today to reiterate their support for the lawful treatment of suspected terrorists and the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.
Representing a group of 33 retired generals and admirals with diverse and distinguished military careers, the generals stated that torture, military commissions, and Guantanamo undermine national security and American values. The group spoke at the National Press Club in a discussion hosted by Human Rights First.
The group has been outspoken on these issues, lobbying in many outlets for the closure of Guantanamo, the lawful treatment of detainees, and the trial of detainees in federal court.
Torture is not only unlawful and immoral under US law and values. Torture undermines security efforts. It fails to produce reliable, actionable intelligence. Instead, it soils our reputation abroad and provides enemies of the United States with effective propaganda. Guantanamo provides an apt symbol of previous torture by US officials and must be closed, both to speed our return to the rule of law and to aid our national security efforts. As former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Harry Soyster pointed out today, intelligence gathering relies on informants abroad who trust that detainees will be treated humanely.
Retired military judge and Brigadier General James Cullen pointed out, the United States justice system has proved successful in trying, convicting, and imprisoning terrorists. 195 international terrorists were convicted in US federal courts between 9/11 and July 2009; 355 domestic and international terrorists are currently held in US prisons. None have escaped. Further, Cullen said, though the now reformed military commissions can provide a fair trial, they will not achieve the same credibility as a federal criminal court.
We must close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, to provide complete closure and show our allies abroad that the United States has decisively rejected the practice of torture. Torture at Guantanamo, Bagram, and CIA black sites was not the action of a few rogue interrogators; it was the product of policy carefully crafted by the Bush administration, and legal cover from the Office of Legal Counsel. To effectively prevent future torture, we must hold accountable those who designed that policy and provided that cover. In an effort to achieve accountability for torture and close Guntanamo, AFJ participated in an action today to raise awareness about this vital issue. To learn more you can watch our short documentary, Tortured Law.
Representing a group of 33 retired generals and admirals with diverse and distinguished military careers, the generals stated that torture, military commissions, and Guantanamo undermine national security and American values. The group spoke at the National Press Club in a discussion hosted by Human Rights First.
The group has been outspoken on these issues, lobbying in many outlets for the closure of Guantanamo, the lawful treatment of detainees, and the trial of detainees in federal court.
Torture is not only unlawful and immoral under US law and values. Torture undermines security efforts. It fails to produce reliable, actionable intelligence. Instead, it soils our reputation abroad and provides enemies of the United States with effective propaganda. Guantanamo provides an apt symbol of previous torture by US officials and must be closed, both to speed our return to the rule of law and to aid our national security efforts. As former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Harry Soyster pointed out today, intelligence gathering relies on informants abroad who trust that detainees will be treated humanely.
Retired military judge and Brigadier General James Cullen pointed out, the United States justice system has proved successful in trying, convicting, and imprisoning terrorists. 195 international terrorists were convicted in US federal courts between 9/11 and July 2009; 355 domestic and international terrorists are currently held in US prisons. None have escaped. Further, Cullen said, though the now reformed military commissions can provide a fair trial, they will not achieve the same credibility as a federal criminal court.
We must close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, to provide complete closure and show our allies abroad that the United States has decisively rejected the practice of torture. Torture at Guantanamo, Bagram, and CIA black sites was not the action of a few rogue interrogators; it was the product of policy carefully crafted by the Bush administration, and legal cover from the Office of Legal Counsel. To effectively prevent future torture, we must hold accountable those who designed that policy and provided that cover. In an effort to achieve accountability for torture and close Guntanamo, AFJ participated in an action today to raise awareness about this vital issue. To learn more you can watch our short documentary, Tortured Law.
A Day of Action to Close Guantanamo and End Torture
Today, Alliance for Justice in coalition with many different organizations from around the globe is calling for the closure of Guantanamo, and an end to torture. We are attempting to "take over" twitter today by using the hashtag #closegitmo throughout the day of action. We hope you will participate, and we've provided a livestream to the right so that you can follow the day's action. You can also follow Nan Aron at twitter.com/Nanaron for updates throughout the day.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Haitian recovery demands immediate advocacy, long term planning
From AFJ's Nonprofit & Foundation Advocacy Blog:
Up to 3 million people are likely to be affected by the 7.0 earthquake that struck Haiti this Tuesday. The communities in this area have seen their infrastructure devastated. Roads are impassable; phone lines are down; electricity is available only erratically. Governments and corporate and nonprofit organizations are already responding to provide emergency aid. Immediately following a disaster, this sort of aid is desperately needed. But as we move forward from this disaster, it is crucial to heed the lessons learned along the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina. Governments, corporate and nonprofit organizations, and foundations must remember the need for long-term recovery, and ensure that disenfranchised, vulnerable populations are heard by decision makers early on in the recovery process.
Governments, corporate and nonprofit organizations and foundations need to think long-term and support positive, systemic changes in community infrastructure. Though the tendency is to rebuild previous institutions, disasters provide an opportunity to transform systems that have historically failed. Philanthropic organizations are well-poised to provide support for lasting improvements in water, sanitation, education, housing, and healthcare access.
As Haitians and allies from around the globe work to rebuild, future disaster preparedness must be considered. This includes communications, disaster resistant construction, and emergency response planning. Remember the Katrina mantra, “Build it Better;” build for the long term. Leave behind a stronger infrastructure, one that is better able to withstand disaster when it occurs, and better able to recover from its devastating effects.
In addition to effective, strategic financial support, foundations and organizations must ensure that poor, at risk populations are able to voice their concerns, needs, and priorities to decision makers. Organizations must work with government to craft the policies that govern—in the immediate aftermath and long after, and they must be able to communicate developing plans and decisions with the public, particularly the hard-to-reach and the displaced. For effective long-term recovery, it is crucial that advocates develop grassroots leadership and community organizing. Small groups who build collective voices for community interests and rights can continue effective advocacy long after disaster strikes. Organizations should identify and support local, emerging leadership, leaving behind strong leaders who can advocate for the disenfranchised long after disaster and the attention it brings have subsided.
Up to 3 million people are likely to be affected by the 7.0 earthquake that struck Haiti this Tuesday. The communities in this area have seen their infrastructure devastated. Roads are impassable; phone lines are down; electricity is available only erratically. Governments and corporate and nonprofit organizations are already responding to provide emergency aid. Immediately following a disaster, this sort of aid is desperately needed. But as we move forward from this disaster, it is crucial to heed the lessons learned along the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina. Governments, corporate and nonprofit organizations, and foundations must remember the need for long-term recovery, and ensure that disenfranchised, vulnerable populations are heard by decision makers early on in the recovery process.
Governments, corporate and nonprofit organizations and foundations need to think long-term and support positive, systemic changes in community infrastructure. Though the tendency is to rebuild previous institutions, disasters provide an opportunity to transform systems that have historically failed. Philanthropic organizations are well-poised to provide support for lasting improvements in water, sanitation, education, housing, and healthcare access.
As Haitians and allies from around the globe work to rebuild, future disaster preparedness must be considered. This includes communications, disaster resistant construction, and emergency response planning. Remember the Katrina mantra, “Build it Better;” build for the long term. Leave behind a stronger infrastructure, one that is better able to withstand disaster when it occurs, and better able to recover from its devastating effects.
In addition to effective, strategic financial support, foundations and organizations must ensure that poor, at risk populations are able to voice their concerns, needs, and priorities to decision makers. Organizations must work with government to craft the policies that govern—in the immediate aftermath and long after, and they must be able to communicate developing plans and decisions with the public, particularly the hard-to-reach and the displaced. For effective long-term recovery, it is crucial that advocates develop grassroots leadership and community organizing. Small groups who build collective voices for community interests and rights can continue effective advocacy long after disaster strikes. Organizations should identify and support local, emerging leadership, leaving behind strong leaders who can advocate for the disenfranchised long after disaster and the attention it brings have subsided.
Friday, January 8, 2010
"Torture Memo" Author John Yoo to Appear on the Daily Show
John Yoo has received much press recently after releasing his new book, Crisis and Command. On Monday, January 11, Yoo will appear on the Daily Show to promote the book, purportedly a history of seizures of power by American presidents dating back to George Washington. As we reported yesterday, the Department of Justice’s internal ethics report on the Office of Legal Counsel lawyers, including John Yoo, who authored the “torture memos,” has still not been released.
Given the history of appearances by former DOJ officials on the show, we trust that Jon Stewart will not shy away from confronting Yoo over his authorship of the torture memos. We hope he will also focus on the need for accountability. There is strong political pressure, including within the Obama administration, not to look back - not to investigate. But how can we hold other countries accountable for acts of torture, and not ourselves? Americans have a right to know the facts about what U.S. government lawyers did to provide legal cover for torture. We must hold accountable those who led America astray to make sure this travesty of justice never happens again. For the facts about John Yoo and the torture memos, watch our short film Tortured Law.
Given the history of appearances by former DOJ officials on the show, we trust that Jon Stewart will not shy away from confronting Yoo over his authorship of the torture memos. We hope he will also focus on the need for accountability. There is strong political pressure, including within the Obama administration, not to look back - not to investigate. But how can we hold other countries accountable for acts of torture, and not ourselves? Americans have a right to know the facts about what U.S. government lawyers did to provide legal cover for torture. We must hold accountable those who led America astray to make sure this travesty of justice never happens again. For the facts about John Yoo and the torture memos, watch our short film Tortured Law.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
FOIA Request Filed For the OPR Report
Today, members of the Robert Jackson Steering Committee (including Marjorie Cohn, a law Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law featured in our film, Tortured Law) filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act requesting the report from the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) on the Office of Legal Counsel lawyers who authored the “torture memos.” Release of the report has been repeatedly delayed for over a year, and most recently Attorney General Holder promised in November to release it “by the end of the month.” The end of November has come and gone and the report has still not been released.In addition to requesting the release of the OPR Report, the FOIA request submitted today asks for the following sets of documents:
1.The long-overdue ethics report of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the performance of Bush administration lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) from 2002-2007. The Attorney General last promised to release this report by the end of November, 2009, and it still has not been released.
2. The first OPR ethics report on the performance of Bush administration lawyers in the OLC, completed in December, 2008.
3. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey's 10-page rebuttal of the December, 2008 report, referenced in The New York Times of May 6, 2009.
4. A copy of OPR regulations regarding settled procedure on conducting a misconduct investigation and producing a report.
5. A copy of any OPR regulations that allow the subjects of the investigation to a) read the final report, b) make changes to the report, and c) allow the Attorney General to rebut the report.
6. Copies of all written warnings from 2001 on from veteran members of the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training program to the Department of Justice, including the OLC, stating that SERE methods of interrogation on detainees were ineffective in eliciting the truth and designed more to elicit false confessions.
7. Copies of all communications from military and national security lawyers and professionals to the Department of Justice, including the Office of Legal Counsel, objecting to the form of interrogation methods proposed by the CIA and adopted by the Bush White House and the OLC lawyers in 2002.
8. Given John Yoo's statement on p 15 of the New York Times Magazine of January 3, 2010, that "if there's a conflict between the president and the Congress, then you have to pick one or the other," we also request any documents shedding light on whom an OLC lawyer is supposed to 'represent' in rendering a legal opinion: the President, Congress, the Constitution, or the entire framework of domestic and international law?
This FOIA request is a good step. We hope it brings us closer to the accountability for torture that America needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)