The White House yesterday sent to the Senate its nomination of Michael O'Neill to fill the vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia created by the retirement of Gladys Kessler. She assumed senior status in January 2007.
O'Neill is a familiar figure on Capitol Hill and in D.C. legal circles. He was chief counsel and staff director of the Senate Judiciary Committee from 2005 to 2007 under Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and helped shepherd through the successful nominations of John Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court, and Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey as attorneys general. Before that, he was a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission for six years. He clerked for Judge David Sentelle on the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In between government gigs, he has taught at George Mason University School of Law.
"Michael will be a superior addition to the federal bench," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. in a statement following the nomination. "He possesses a virtually encyclopedic knowledge of the law, especially constitutional law. He ably managed one of the most important and busiest Committees in the Senate as we tackled the leading issues of the day, and demonstrated unfailing fairness to both sides of the aisle."
Late-session nominations like O'Neill's have a slim-to-none chance of making it through the nomination process especially in a presidential election year, but his ties to Specter probably give him a better slim chance than others.
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.
Posted by: Joe BLow | July 03, 2008 at 06:59 PM
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
Posted by: Glenn Sugameli | June 22, 2008 at 07:47 PM
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
Posted by: Glenn Sugameli | June 21, 2008 at 01:38 PM