It’s difficult to keep up with all of B-HO’s nominee confirmations and withdrawals, so I decided to take a peek at one nominee that is in the pipeline to be his Deputy Attorney General.
His name is David Ogden, and you may be impressed with his record, along with his glowing qualifications for the job of Deputy Attorney General.
As you can see in the above link he has punched all the tickets, crossed the t’s, and dotted all the lower case i’s and j’s.
* JD, magna cum laude, Harvard Law School, 1981, Editor, Harvard Law Review
* BA, summa cum laude, University of Pennsylvania, 1976, Phi Beta Kappa
US Government Experience
As the US Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, Mr. Ogden directed the Justice Department’s largest litigating unit, responsible for representing virtually all of the federal agencies (including the White House, the Defense and State Departments, the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, the Justice Department itself, the Treasury, the Department of Transportation, the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies, and senior officials (including the President and First Lady) in major civil litigation, including the government’s largest regulatory, constitutional, international, national security, administrative, government contract, commercial, tort, fraud and false claims, immigration, and consumer matters. As Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Attorney General and as Associate Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Ogden assisted the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General in directing the Department of Justice, including in particular the Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights, Environment and Natural Resources, and Tax Divisions. As Deputy General Counsel and Legal Counsel at the US Department of Defense, Mr. Ogden was responsible for overseeing that Department’s litigation in courts throughout the world.(Ed:this was the Clintoon administration he served in)
There is much more on his background, and his resume is nearly complete, as this administrations requirement of being a tax cheat is missing, but that may be an oversight.
However, Ogden does seem to have some odd sympathies, and proclivities, when it comes to his client list.
Do you recall the famous 2005 Supreme Court decision concerning the death penalty, where foreign laws impacted the SCOTUS ruling? It was the Roper vs. Simmons case, and Ogden was the co-author of the defendants brief.
In short, from the above link, here is a summary:
The Roper v. Simmons Case. In 1993 in St. Louis, Missouri, Christopher Simmons, nine months before his 18th birthday, planned and carried out the cold-blooded murder of 46-year-old Shirley Crook. Following a plan that he had discussed in great detail with his friends, Simmons and an accomplice broke into Crook’s home, hogtied her with electrical wire, wrapped her head in duct tape, drove her to a bridge, and threw her into the Meramec River, where she drowned. Simmons subsequently bragged about the murder, explaining to friends that he killed Crook “because the bitch seen my face.” Simmons was subsequently arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death.
Simmons’ case was appealed through the Missouri legal system and ultimately argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, where Simmons was represented by a team of attorneys which included Ogden. Among the arguments made in the brief co-authored by Ogden and submitted to the Supreme Court was that, in making its decision, the Court should look to the laws, legal opinions, and decisions of foreign nations and international organizations regarding the death penalty.
Ogden argued that the laws of foreign nations enjoy a direct cause-and-effect relationship with the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution: “Almost without exception, the other nations of the world have rejected capital punishment of those under 18, confirming that the juvenile death penalty is contrary to Eighth Amendment standards of decency.” In other words, since the “other nations of the world” disfavor capital punishment for juvenile killers, it necessarily follows that the death penalty for juvenile killers in the United States is contrary to the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
United Nations Treaties and International Organizations. In support of this position, Ogden’s brief in Roper cites to the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989, the terms of which bar the execution of persons who commit crimes while under the age of 18. However, the United States did not vote in favor of the CRC in the General Assembly and has thus far–under both the Clinton and Bush Administrations–chosen not to become a party to the CRC. The United States has excellent reasons not to ratify the CRC. And yet Ogden’s brief maintains that since “every [other] country in the world” is a party to the CRC, the United States (including the Supreme Court) should follow its terms and outlaw the juvenile death penalty.
Ogden’s argument turns logic on its head. In effect, the Roper brief maintains that even though the United States has specifically chosen not to join the CRC, it should still be bound by its terms. Moreover, it necessarily follows that the Supreme Court should ignore the U.S. government’s decision not to ratify the CRC and impose upon the nation the CRC’s death penalty prohibition.
The Heritage raises an excellent point, in that same link:
If confirmed by the Senate as deputy attorney general, Ogden would be placed in a position of great influence over the policy of the Department of Justice, second only to the attorney general, whom he would “advise and assist … in formulating and implementing Department policies and programs.” Accordingly, Ogden will have a major hand in counterterrorism policy, enforcement priorities, sentencing, and the decision whether to authorize federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in appropriate cases. What role will the decisions of foreign courts and the “opinions of mankind” have on Ogden’s policy recommendations?
This man has embraced the practice of lying to get the desired result, as well as any lawyer, that give all the rest a bad name.
As they say in the infomercials,
BUT WAIT..THERE’S MORE!
The human rights group, Fidelis, issued a statement today, regarding the nomination of this man as Deputy AG. What I have learned about this man disgusts me, even more than his lying for a living, and serving the (previously) most corrupt, indicted, and convicted administration in history under Clintoon.
Here is what Fidelis has to say about this appalling individual:
“Ogden’s record is nothing short of obscene. He has represented Playboy Enterprises in multiple cases, Penthouse Magazine, the ACLU, and the largest distributor of hard-core pornography videos. He has opposed filters on library computers protecting children from Internet smut, and successfully defended the right of pornographers to produce material with underage children.”
“David Ogden has collected checks from Playboy and Penthouse to fight any attempts to establish filters on federally-funded public libraries. Ogden even sued the federal government in an attempt to publish Braille versions of Playboy magazine – at taxpayer expense, of course,” said Burch.
As a lawyer in private practice, Ogden has argued for an unlimited abortion license, gays in the military, and has urged courts to treat traditional definitions of marriage as a social prejudice.
Both the Heritage foundation and Fidelis have brought forward excellent topics for discussion during his confirmation process. I feel confident that the majority party, the Jack-Asses, will vote unanimously for this foul individual’s confirmation. Good character is not a resume enhancement to them.
I sincerely hope the minority party votes unanimously against him, and at least gives the American public a good long look at the poor character that is infesting our system of government.
While we may have to live with the current administration for four years, and all of the absurdities that are sure to follow, we don’t have to accept it, and can start developing our focus on what needs to be done in the mid-term election.
*Gratuitous lawyer joke*
The National Institutes of Health have announced that they will no longer be using rats for medical experimentation. In their place, they will use attorneys. They have given three reasons for this decision:
1. There are now more attorneys than there are rats.
2. The medical researchers don’t become as emotionally attached to the attorneys as they did to the rats.
3. No matter how hard you try, there are some things that rats won’t do.
(cross-posted at Urban Grounds)