Nominated While Federalist
A free ride, however, for senators on a mission to destroy reputations and careers.

Mr. Levin is also president of the Landmark Legal Foundation.
May 14, 2001 9:10 a.m.

everal weeks ago, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) demanded that President George Bush apologize to the Red

Printer-Friendly E-mail a Friend Levin Archive

Chinese for nearly killing 24 of our servicemen and servicewoman, for subsequently imprisoning them against their will, and stealing our airplane and most of its state secrets. The Chinese Communists threaten our ally, Taiwan, and even threaten our country by perfecting the distance and accuracy of their nuclear missiles — thanks in part to the generosity of the Clinton administration. Still, none of this bothers Feinstein. Indeed, in the face of this, not to mention Red China's abysmal human-rights record — which has been condemned by two of the most cherished liberal institutions, i.e., our own State Department and Amnesty International — Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum, has made a small fortune investing millions of dollars with the mainland communists.

Given this background, it's difficult to stomach Feinstein's criticism of California Congressman Chris Cox, who she contends is too conservative to sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Of course, Cox is a mainstream conservative. There's nothing extreme or odd about the man. He's an outstanding lawyer who once served in the White House Counsel's Office under President Ronald Reagan.

So, what exactly does Feinstein find so offensive about Cox? Is it his strict adherence to the original intent of the framers who authored the United States Constitution, such as James Madison? Is it his respect for liberty and order, which sit at the core of our republic? Is it his belief in judicial restraint and the limits of judicial power? Is it his faith in the will of the American people? Or was it his investigation into Red China's attempts, some successful, in violating our national security?

Feinstein is far more accommodating of Red China's brutal regime than of a conservative Republican who is both decent and distinguished.

Then there's Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.). Somebody needs to tell this man that he's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, not a participant in the Army-McCarthy hearings. Durbin speaks of the Federalist Society and its 25,000 members as if he were chasing Communists. But, then again, Durbin doesn't chase Communists, just federalists.

Consider this exchange on May 9th between Durbin and Georgetown Law Professor Viet Dinh. Keep in mind that Dinh immigrated to the U.S. from Vietnam as a young child. He's a wonderful example of a person living the American dream. President George Bush nominated Dinh to be Asst. Attorney General for the Office of Policy Development at the U.S. Department of Justice.

SEN. DURBIN: Thank you.

Professor Dinh, I'm glad that we had a chance to get together, and I want a follow up on one aspect of our conversation concerning the important job which you are seeking relative to judicial appointments. And as I mentioned to you at our meeting — and I'm sure it comes as no surprise — this is an item of great interest.

As I said to you, many of us feel that the outcome of the presidential election in November at least raised some question as to whether the president has a mandate to make significant changes in the judiciary that would have an impact on values and decisions and precedents which have been in place for many decades.

You are a member of the Federalist Society. We find it curious on our side of the aisle that President Bush has said that he no longer wants to rely on the American Bar Association to do a background check on perspective judges. This was a tradition that started in a radical era of American politics known as the Eisenhower presidency when President Eisenhower thought it was reasonable — and I do, too, incidentally — that the largest bar association in America at least comment on the worthiness of nominees for the federal bench.

Could you describe for us your involvement with the Federalist Society and what you believe this group stands for?

MR. DINH: Senator, first of all, thank you very much for taking the time out of your very busy schedule to meet with me the other day. It was a very fruitful discussion. I very much appreciate the courtesy.

I am a member of the Federalist Society, and I do not know, quite frankly, what it all stands for. As you asked me during our meeting whether I've read their statement of principles — no, I have not. What I know — what it stands for me, why I joined the society — when I first joined the faculty of Georgetown Law Center is that it is a forum for discussion of law and public policy from both sides. And a very number of a very prominent debates have — and very fruitful debates — have been carried out under the auspices of the Federalist Society throughout the law schools and the bars of this nation. That's why I believe that it serves a very useful function, not only in the discussion of law and public policy in the public debate, but also in the pedagogical mission of our law schools, as a number of others organizations do.

I do hope that, given my rather voluminous paper trail of publications and public speeches, that my candidacy and what I think will be judged upon those statements and publications rather than — not on any one particular membership.

SEN. DURBIN: I recall your answer and you've repeated it here for the sake of the committee. And I find it interesting that if you are looking for a forum for debate, the Federalist Society is a comfortable forum, but apparently the ACLU is not, for a discussion. You've never joined an organization like the ACLU, have you?

MR. DINH: No, I have not, Senator, because I do not join organizations that — with the exception of the American Bar Association through my group membership as a faculty member of the Georgetown Law faculty — that take public positions and adopt policy statements. And to my knowledge, the Federalist Society does not take public positions, adopt policy statements, file amicus briefs or the like. It is simply a forum for discussion, as I am also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is a forum for public discussion on foreign policy issues in which I am also interested.

SEN. DURBIN: So it is your belief that the Federalist Society does not have a philosophy — a stated philosophy when it comes to, for example, the future course of the Supreme Court?

MR. DINH: No, I do not think it does have a stated philosophy, to my knowledge. It may very well have. I just simply do not know. I know that the society has a very diverse membership of people who think very equivocally about these issues, and I know that I've gotten many, many — into many, many disagreements with members of the Federalist society on these kinds of issues. So I do not think that a official policy would be possible even if desirable.

SEN. DURBIN: Where would you put the Federalist Society on the political spectrum?

MR. DINH: You know, I simply do not know. I know that there are press reports that have attempted to put it in a political spectrum with respect to other organizations. I myself have — in my personal and professional life, have been very hesitant to characterize anybody or any group according to labels, simply because I eschew such labels myself. So I — it would not be appropriate for me to do so for others.

SEN. DURBIN: And you are not familiar — or are you familiar, rather, with the term, "the court in exile — the Constitution in exile?"

MR. DINH: No, sir, I am not.

SEN. DURBIN: Okay.

Well, let me say that what I've read — and I'm not an expert nor am I member of the Federalist Society — they do have a very conservative philosophy. I don't think they are a debating society. I think they have an agenda. And it troubles some of us to believe that the American Bar Association, which has been characterized as liberal by the conservatives and conservative by the liberals over the course of its history, is being cast aside by the White House now when it comes to the judicial process. And instead we find that many people who are associated with the Federalist Society are now seeking prominent positions in the administration of justice. I don't think it's a coincidence. I think it is a conscious decision to move us toward a path that, frankly, many of us think needs to be questioned, and at least publicized.

I sincerely hope that — if you are indeed confirmed, that you do not become an agent of any political agenda. You have an extraordinary personal family history. It is just exceptional, and I think all of us are in awe of what you and your family has achieved in overcoming great odds. I think that you can make a great contribution to public service and I hope that you will. But I hope that it doesn't become an effort for a political clearinghouse for only those who happened to hew to that line to be considered as possible nominees to the federal bench. I think we do need diversity and moderation and the kind of excellence and integrity which both parties should seek to make part of their nomination process.

Luckily, Dinh didn't give up the Federalist Society's secret handshake during this sickening grilling by Durbin. But even Durbin's not the most despicable of character assassins on the Senate Judiciary Committee. That honor, at least for this week, goes to the committee's Ranking Democrat, Patrick Leahy.

Leahy honed his skills as a leading liberal hit man during the confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. These hearings were two of the most deplorable events in the history of the U.S. Senate, and Leahy was at the center of both of them.

Today, Leahy's taking aim at Theodore Olson's back. Olson, of course, is among the most brilliant and honorable lawyers in the country. Just ask Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe and trial lawyer David Boies, both of whom suffered the worst defeats of their careers as a result of Olson's representation of George Bush before the U.S. Supreme Court. And it's precisely for this reason that Leahy seeks to derail President Bush's nomination of Olson to be Solicitor General. There has never been a more qualified nominee for this position.

Leahy is up to his usual mud-ball tactics. With the help of a small cabal of left-wing, agenda-driven writers, Leahy's trying to resurrect a fictional conspiracy, the so-called "Arkansas Project," promoted a few years ago by Bill Clinton's supporters in an attempt to discredit then-Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. This topic is thoroughly addressed in David Limbaugh's best-selling book, Absolute Power.

In short, the Arkansas Project was nothing more than an investigation by The American Spectator magazine into certain of Clinton's activities back in Arkansas. The conspiracy went something like this: the Sarah Scaife Foundation contributed money to The American Spectator, including the Arkansas Project; the foundation also gave money to Pepperdine University, which at some point offered a top job to Ken Starr; and David Hale, Starr's key witness against Clinton in a trial related to the Whitewater scandal, received payments through the Arkansas Project to influence his testimony against Clinton.

Of course, the Scaife Foundation did contribute to The American Spectator, as it contributed to many conservative organizations (including Landmark Legal Foundation) and many non-ideological causes as well. But the foundation did not give money to Pepperdine to hire Starr. Those funds were pledged to Pepperdine before the university had considered hiring anyone for the post it eventually offered Starr. The allegation that Hale received payments to influence his testimony was made by a lady who was tarot-card reader and former girlfriend of Parker Dozhier — a local researcher for the Arkansas project. Dozhier claimed that his former girlfriend was a loyal Democrat who was angry with him.

In any event, this entire preposterous story was investigated by a special counsel, former Justice Department official Michael Shaheen. Shaheen impaneled a grand jury, investigated for many months, and found the charges unsubstantiated and untrue. There was no wrongdoing and there was nothing to the trumped up allegations.

What does Olson have to do with any of this? Well, David Brock, a born-again Clinton apologist who is committed to tarnishing the careers and reputations of his former colleagues at The American Spectator, has apparently informed the Senate Judiciary Committee that Olson had a more significant role in the Arkansas Project than Olson has admitted. There's no dispute that Olson provided legal input to The American Spectator from time-to-time. But Brock claims that Olson may have actually talked about the Arkansas Project at a dinner! This is supposed to prove Olson's intimate knowledge of the project, which knowledge Olson has denied to his Senate inquisitors. Moreover, The American Spectator's founder, Bob Tyrrell, corroborates Olson's position.

Not so coincidentally, Brock, who, of late, has had great difficultly convincing the public to buy his books, has written a book this time claiming to expose, among other things, Olson's true role in the Arkansas Project. Clinton defenders like Leahy used to dismiss such allegations from would-be authors as motivated by money. And Brock hopes to make lots and lots of money from his soon-to-be published book, at Olson's expense.

Now comes Leahy, always at the ready to exploit personal vendettas and gossip, and drag the Senate and outstanding people like Bork, Thomas, and Olson into his sewer.

While Leahy sits in judgment of others, it's reasonable to ask what kind of judgment Leahy has. As reported by Newsmax.com's Carl Limbacher, in 1987 Leahy resigned from the Senate Intelligence Committee after a six-month internal investigation of his leaks of confidential committee information. Apparently Leahy gave an NBC reporter access to confidential committee information relating to the so-called Iran-Contra matter.

There has never been a full public airing of Leahy's conduct. But, who cares, right? After all, Leahy's not a conservative, he's not a member of the Federalist Society, and he never attended a dinner at which the Arkansas Project may have been discussed. There was a time, however, when the U.S. Senate would censure a politician like Leahy. But, then again, we can't expect much from a Senate that two years ago didn't even have the courage to uphold the U.S. Constitution against a law-breaking president.