Pubdate: Thu, 18 Jan 2001
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 2001 The Washington Post Company
Page A37
Contact:  1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Author: William Raspberry
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ashcroft.htm (Ashcroft, John)

ASHCROFT THE ACTIVIST

Opponents of John Ashcroft's nomination to become attorney general have 
been turning over every rock in sight, hoping to find some outrageous 
statement, some political skeleton, some evidence that he is unfit to be 
the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

His supporters have been doing their best to prove that the nominee is 
technically qualified for the job and is, moreover, a decent man who would 
enforce the law fairly.

The whole thing seems to be missing the point. I have never doubted 
Ashcroft's decency, never questioned his legal abilities, never worried 
that, in a particular case, he would be unfair.

But the attorney general is not just the nation's chief cop. He is also the 
chief influencer of our law-enforcement policy.

It is from that office that decisions are made on which laws to enforce, 
and how vigorously; what discretion ought to be exercised, and in which 
direction; how law-enforcement resources should be deployed, and with what 
emphases. Bland reassurances that Ashcroft would "enforce the law fairly" 
aren't much help.

To take a simple example, what does it mean to enforce America's drug laws 
"fairly"? Does it mean locking up anybody caught with illegal drugs, as the 
law permits? Does it mean focusing resources on major traffickers, as the 
law also permits? Does it mean shifting resources from enforcement to 
treatment -- or the other way around? Does it mean confiscating more and 
more assets of people found in violation of the drug laws? The law allows 
all these things -- allows as well the disparate sentencing for powdered 
and "crack" cocaine and the well-documented racial disparity that results 
from it.

To promise to enforce the law without talking about which policies would be 
emphasized or changed is to say nothing at all. Absent a president with 
strong feelings on the matter, law-enforcement policy is largely left to 
attorneys general to decide. Some have gone against discrimination, some 
against organized crime, some against monopolies and trusts. Some have 
followed public sentiment, and some have gone their own way. Most of the 
time, it hasn't mattered much. So why do so many non-conservatives believe 
it will matter so much this time?

The answer is in Ashcroft's record of advocacy. He has fought with 
extraordinary vigor for positions that are well outside the American 
mainstream -- on gun control, on abortion, on juvenile justice, on the 
death penalty. I don't mean to deny that his position on all these issues 
might be shared by a significant minority. I say only that his views are 
unusually conservative. He is, I think it fair to say, an ideologue. And 
when you take someone who has been advocating views that are well away from 
the political center and put him in charge of law-enforcement policy, it's 
not enough to say he'll "enforce the law."

Ashcroft signaled his own understanding of this point when he was asked 
whether he would try to undermine the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on 
abortion. He said that for the solicitor general (who ranks under the 
attorney general) to petition the Supreme Court to have another look at Roe 
would undermine the Justice Department's standing before the court.

He was, as I read his response, saying he could make the attempt, though it 
might be impolitic to do so at this time.

Is it unfair to oppose Ashcroft, an experienced lawyer, out of fear that 
his personal and religious views would influence his role as attorney general?

As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) reminded us the other day, it is a question 
Ashcroft himself has answered. When Bill Lann Lee was named by President 
Clinton to head the Justice Department's civil rights division, Ashcroft 
fought to deny him the job.

He had no doubt concerning the nominee's professional ability, Ashcroft 
said at the time, but Lee's beliefs (on affirmative action) "limit his 
capacity to have the balanced view of making judgments that will be 
necessary for the person who runs the division."

Why can't the same assessment apply to the person who will run the whole 
department?
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager