A clue to the kind of recommendations Ashcroft might make can be found in his vigorous opposition, on ideological grounds, to Clinton nominees for federal posts. Ashcroft opposed the appointment of Bill Lann Lee to head the civil rights division of the Department of Justice on the basis of Lee's support of affirmative action. He opposed the nomination of Dr. David Satcher as Surgeon General on the basis of Satcher's pro-choice views. He opposed the confirmation of James Hormel to be Ambassador to Luxembourg, apparently solely because Hormel is openly gay.
Ashcroft also opposed or helped delay hearings on a number of Clinton's appointments to the federal bench on ideological grounds. His most recent foray into the politics of judicial selection was his now-infamous torpedoing of the nomination of Ronnie White to the United States District Court. In a vicious ambush, two years after White's nomination (and during his Senate re-election campaign), Ashcroft suddenly attacked White's record on crime and the death penalty, calling him pro-criminal and anti-death penalty. The problem was, it wasn't true, and Senator Ashcroft knew it wasn't true. Justice White, the first black jurist to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court, had voted to uphold the death penalty in more than 70 percent of the cases brought before the court.
Many observers consider the death-penalty issue a cover for Ashcroft's opposition to White's support for reproductive choice. Others point out that he was embroiled in a tough race for re-election at the time, and may simply have used the confirmation battle to portray himself as tough on crime. Still others suggest his opposition to both White and Satcher were racially motivated - and, it must be noted that a large proportion of the nominees opposed by Ashcroft during his Senate term were women or minorities.
In truth, Ashcroft may have had several reasons for opposing White and other minority and women candidates nominated by President Clinton. But it's clear that at least one of his reasons was that their ideology offended his own. This kind of ideological litmus test is particularly troubling in the person responsible for screening potential nominees to the federal bench. That was one of the major concerns highlighted by The People For the American Way in its report, "The Case Against the Confirmation of John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States, Part One: An Overview of the Senate Years."
An elected official with John Ashcroft’s record of extremism should not be entrusted with the responsibility of helping to decide whether our next federal court judges and Supreme Court Justices are fair-minded individuals committed to the fundamental American principle of equal justice for all, or are ideologues chosen to advance a specific social and legal agenda.
Another clue to Ashcroft view of the proper role of the judiciary can be found in his frequent denunciations of court decisions upholding constitutional rights with which he disagrees. And perhaps more disturbingly, he has often coupled his criticisms of the courts with efforts to block access to the courts for unpopular groups, such as prisoners and immigrants.
To those concerned that Ashcroft may not vigorously enforce laws with which he disagrees, his supporters say that he is a man of impeccable ethics who respects "the rule of law." Of course, such a claim begs the ethical question raised by his deliberate distortion of Ronnie White's record on the death penalty. But, even aside from that, those statements may not be as reassuring as his supporters might hope, given Ashcroft's frequent references to the importance of Christianity as the source of American law.
Next page > Legislating Morality > Page 1, 2, 3, 4
