Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Court of Appeals Judge Silberman Receives Presidential Medal of Freedom | Main | Former U.S. Attorneys Assail McNulty Memo »

June 20, 2008

Comments

Joe BLow

Mr O'Neill sounds well qualified but he has also displayed a pattern of using other people's material in his work without attribution. The American people could excuse one incidence of this - we are into redemption - but he has done it several times. I think he is therefore unqualified for the position. It would be too much to expect him to have the moral fibre to withdraw gracefully.

Glenn Sugameli

In my previous post I correctly attributed a quote to a Feb. 9, 2007 Salon column BUT I misattributed the quote and column to Dahlia Lithwick [who wrote a related March 5, 2007 Slate column that discusses O'Neill] rather than to Joe Conason. It should read:

Instead of nominee Michael O'Neill's "ties to Specter," it would be more accurate to refer to how O'Neill was tied to Specter.

The Harrisburg Patriot News politics blog described yesterday under the heading "Controversial Specter aide tapped for judgeship:"

"there might be more to O'Neill's relationship with Specter than meets the eye. According to several reports, Specter was forced [LINK](search O'Neil on the page) to accept O'Neill, who previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, as part of the deal for him to become Judiciary chairman.

It was O'Neill who apparently knew about the insertion of language in the legislation extending the Patriot Act that allowed Bush to replace U.S. attorneys without Senate approval."

Joe Conason explained in his Feb. 9, 2007 Salon column:

"Right-wing distrust had almost ousted the Pennsylvania moderate from the Judiciary chairmanship, and appointing O'Neill was apparently the price for keeping that post.

Evidently O'Neill rewarded Specter by sneaking through legislation to deprive him and his fellow senators of one of their most important powers, at the behest of an attorney general intent on aggrandizing executive power. The results of this backstage betrayal -- now playing out in a wave of politicized dismissals and hirings -- were perfectly predictable and utterly poisonous."

A Hill aide's insertion of a major, explosive provision into legislation without notifying his boss or any other Senator raises, at the very least, extremely serious questions about Michael O'Neill's judgment.

-Glenn Sugameli
Senior Legislative Counsel
& head of judicial nominations project since 2001
Earthjustice
www.judgingtheenvironment.org

Glenn Sugameli

Instead of nominee Michael O'Neill's "ties to Specter," it would be more accurate to refer to how O'Neil was tied to Specter.

The Harrisburg Patriot News politics blog described yesterday under the heading "Controversial Specter aide tapped for judgeship:"

"there might be more to O'Neill's relationship with Specter than meets the eye. According to several reports, Specter was forced [LINK](search O'Neil on the page) to accept O'Neill, who previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, as part of the deal for him to become Judiciary chairman.

It was O'Neil who apparently knew about the insertion of language in the legislation extending the Patriot Act that allowed Bush to replace U.S. attorneys without Senate approval."

Dahlia Lithwick explained in her Feb. 9, 2007 Salon column:

"Right-wing distrust had almost ousted the Pennsylvania moderate from the Judiciary chairmanship, and appointing O'Neill was apparently the price for keeping that post.

Evidently O'Neill rewarded Specter by sneaking through legislation to deprive him and his fellow senators of one of their most important powers, at the behest of an attorney general intent on aggrandizing executive power. The results of this backstage betrayal -- now playing out in a wave of politicized dismissals and hirings -- were perfectly predictable and utterly poisonous."

A Hill aide's insertion of a major, explosive provision into legislation without notifying his boss or any other Senator raises, at the very least, extremely serious questions about O'Neill's judgment.

-Glenn Sugameli
Senior Legislative Counsel
& head of judicial nominations project since 2001
Earthjustice
www.judgingtheenvironment.org

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements