{ prima facie } the Temple Law newspaper

By Erin Lamb, Temple Law student

On Monday, Oct. 20, the Temple Law Democrats invited Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) to Temple Law’s Moot Court Room to speak on behalf of Senator Obama’s (D-IL) presidential campaign. In office since 1992, Sen. Feingold is Wisconsin’s junior senator and a well-known and powerful voice in the Senate.

Professor Jan Ting entertained the crowd before Feingold arrived with stories of his own forays into the political arena. Prof. Ting stated in his introduction of the senator that Feingold’s entire political career epitomized the themes of the Obama campaign: Change, Progress, Reform, and Hope.

Speaking in front of a standing-room only crowd in the Moot Court Room, Sen. Feingold spent most of his speech debunking what he considered to be myths about Sen. Obama’s lack of legislative experience and skill. Feingold pointed to his own experience working with Sen. Obama on the lobbying reform bills that went through the Senate in 2006 and 2007. In 2006, the first bill series of reforms introduced in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal was passed, but most commentators believed it did not go for enough. After the Democrats became the majority party after Congressional elections, but despite opposition from both parties, Sen. Feingold and Sen. Obama introduced the stronger Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act of 2007,

Having earned a J.D. from Harvard Law School, Sen. Feingold took the opportunity to discuss the Bush Administration’s approach to the law for the past eight years as well. He characterized the administration for having a disregard and disrespect for the rule of law.

He specifically criticized the administration’s interpretation of Article II of the Constitution. Sen. Feingold said that the administration approaches the Constitution as having created a unitary executive department under the total dominion of the President. This greatly limits legislative oversight of the executive branch and the role of regulatory agencies. In some cases, this approach allows the president to simply ignore the law. If a law requires executive action (such as laws necessitating the creation of an agency with special legislative powers), the president can simply refuse to set the process in motion, which renders the law ineffective.

Sen. Obama, Sen. Feingold believes, would not adopt this theory and would return the executive branch to what he believed is its traditional and rightful place under the law.

Sen. Feingold pointed to the selection of Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court nominee as another example of the Bush Administration’s flouting of the legislative branch and lack of respect for the law. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Feingold grew frustrated with the failure of the Bush Administration to appoint quality jurists at all levels, including among the district and circuit courts. Sen. Feingold declared that Sen. Obama would appoint jurists that share “our worldview”. He also characterized Miers and Clarence Thomas as unqualified jurists whose views Sen. Obama would not support.

Sen. Feingold also took questions from the audience, and many students were impressed at his grasp of policy and how willing he was to speak freely and in concrete terms. Questions included ones on Sen. Obama’s plans to revoke the Bush Administration’s highly criticized federal wiretapping program, higher education programs, the Patriot Act, effects of Sen. Obama’s tax program on small businesses, and plans to tackle the current world financial crisis.

Sen. Feingold was unwilling to commit Sen. Obama’s campaign to a fiscal crisis plan, stating only that he believes Sen. Obama would not do anything that would injure businesses or make their jobs harder in the current financial market.

2L Felix Yelin asked Sen. Feingold whether his statements on qualified jurists sharing Sen. Obama’s worldview amounted to a litmus test, and asked him to clarify his definition of “qualified”.

Sen. Feingold responded that he had voted for Chief Justice John Roberts, and that while he certainly has been disappointed in some of Roberts’ decisions, he was an unquestionably qualified legal mind, whereas he had not voted for Justice Samuel Alito. Sen. Feingold also dismissed discussion of a litmus test, saying he did not think it was a proper way to choose judges.

Yelin responded to this paper’s later inquiry, “Senator Feingold answered very much like a typical politician. He had rehearsed campaign answers to standard questions and was able to deflect any hard questions with superficial responses that avoided the heart of the inquiry.”

2L Elyse Kleinberg saw Sen. Feingold differently, and said of his visit, “Senator Feingold did a great job fielding a variety of well thought-out questions. I particularly thought he was impressive when he called for the immediate closure of Guantanamo Bay. Many politicians would have not stated an answer so frankly.”