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