 
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
He is superbly qualified, says David J. Porter, and his critics are merepartisans
Sunday, December 31, 2000
President-elect George W. Bush has assembled a well-qualified, diverse and remarkably centrist Cabinet. For his efforts, he has earned plaudits, or at least respectful silence, from most political observers. That changed abruptly when Bush announced his selection of Sen. John Ashcroft to be the next attorney general.
Liberal Democrats and special-interest groups are training their sights on Ashcroft in hopes that they might derail his confirmation by the Senate. Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, called Ashcroft's appointment "astonishingly bad." Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, warned that his nomination is "a battle worthy of fighting." Opponents are urging Senate Democrats to employ any means possible, including a filibuster, to block Ashcroft's nomination.
They should think twice about starting this "battle." Although the rules may be changing in this post-Bork era, the fact remains that since 1789, the Senate has rejected only nine Cabinet nominations and confirmed nearly 900. Those are long odds for Ashcroft's detractors, and their chances are not improved by the force of their arguments.
By any standard, Ashcroft is a superb nominee. Consider the following criteria by which executive officials have historically been evaluated:
By all accounts, Ashcroft enjoys a sterling personal reputation. Former Sen. Paul Simon, a liberal Democrat whose ideology is the polar opposite of Ashcroft's, says he is "completely honest." Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who served on the Judiciary Committee with Ashcroft, called him "a gentleman" who was "invariably polite and flexible" in his handling of legislative matters.
So what accounts for the near-hysterical reaction to Ashcroft's nomination in some quarters? The same motivations that drive virtually all confirmation fights - political ideology and partisanship.
Ashcroft's critics are attempting to paint him as an irresponsible ideologue, but his mainstream conservative views merely reflect those of President-elect Bush. During the campaign, Bush unambiguously told the nation that he is pro-life, pro-death penalty, anti-gun control, prefers judges who exercise restraint and strictly construe the Constitution, and disfavors quota-based affirmative action plans. Those are also Ashcroft's views, and it would be passing strange if he were deemed unfit because his political philosophy mirrors that of the newly elected president he is called to serve.
The outcry over Ashcroft's nomination betrays the implicit one-sidedness of much of the current chatter about bipartisanship and diversity.
Notwithstanding the predominately moderate choices of President-elect Bush since the election, the opposition party has drawn its sword at the first sign of a conservative presence in the new administration. Better to heed the advice of vice presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who suggested during a 1997 confirmation hearing that the appropriate standard for senators undertaking their duty to advise and consent is "to determine whether the president's nominee is within the acceptable range for the particular job for which that person is nominated, not whether we would have nominated that person."
David J. Porter, a lawyer, is president of the Pittsburgh Federalist Society. 
Professional qualifications. Ashcroft's background and experience makes him extremely well-qualified for the job of attorney general. He earned an honors degree from Yale University and a law degree from the prestigious University of Chicago Law School. He was attorney general of Missouri from 1976 to 1985, then governor from 1985 to 1993. He has practiced law in the private sector. In 1994 he was elected to the U.S. Senate from Missouri, and during his term in the Senate he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights. Personal and professional integrity. Of all executive officers, it is imperative that the attorney general be beyond reproach in his personal character and respect for the law. As the nation's chief law enforcement officer, the attorney general serves as an example for all citizens and must be an ethical guardian of the executive branch. During the Clinton administration, controversies regarding the personal finances of Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood and Janet Reno's passive aggression in protecting the White House from congressional scrutiny served to highlight the importance of this factor. Favoritism. It is clear from Alexander Hamilton's discussion of the appointments clause in The Federalist Papers (No. 76) that the Framers of the Constitution intended the Senate to act as a check on personal and regional favoritism in executive appointments. Cronyism and personal closeness have historically been issues of concern to senators, especially with respect to attorney general nominees. The late Sen. John Heinz stated that the Senate should have a "negative presumption against any prospective attorney general who comes to us with a close personal and political relationship with the president whom he is to serve." Sen. Ashcroft is neither a close personal friend of George W. Bush nor one of his Texas cronies. In fact, the two were political opponents during the primary race for the Republican presidential nomination. Conflicts of interest. Other than some low-volume sniping about a relatively modest $5,000 contribution from Microsoft to Ashcroft's Senate campaign, his opponents have not alleged any significant personal or financial conflicts of interest that should disqualify him.