Senators Should Fight for Middle Ground and Block Ashcroft

The selection of conservative Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft to be attorney general is evidence that President-elect George W. Bush’s talk of bipartisanship and conciliation is just empty rhetoric.

The far right of the Republican Party expressed concern that Bush’s initial Cabinet appointments were too moderate. Rather than stand up to the right wing and show a true commitment to a middle-of-the-road administration, Bush gave conservatives the Cabinet position they care most about: attorney general.

Now the burden is on the U.S. Senate to reject this appointment, by a filibuster if necessary, to deliver a clear message that far-right appointments will not be approved.

Ashcroft has been one of the most conservative members of the Senate. He is fiercely anti-abortion. He has opposed every major civil rights bill during his stint in the Senate and led the fight against the confirmation of Bill Lann Lee as assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division. Despite Lee’s unquestioned and impeccable credentials, Ashcroft objected to Lee because he had opposed Proposition 209, the measure that eliminated affirmative action in California.

Ashcroft is closely aligned with the religious right and repeatedly has introduced legislation to allow religious groups to receive federal funds. His proposal, called “charitable choice,” permits churches and synagogues to receive money for social service programs. Faith-based groups always could get federal funds if they created a separate, nonreligious entity to conduct programs such as family planning services, alcohol and drug rehabilitation and homeless shelters. Ashcroft has pushed, sometimes successfully, for allowing religious groups, including houses of worship, to get the money directly. Not surprisingly, he is a hero to the religious right, notwithstanding the dubious constitutionality of such aid.

On every issue, Ashcroft is at the far right of the Republican Party, and that is exactly why conservatives pushed for him to be the attorney general. The Justice Department represents the federal government in court, including the U.S. Supreme Court. With Ashcroft as attorney general, conservatives are confident that the Justice Department will oppose abortion rights, including calling for the overrule of Roe vs. Wade.

With Ashcroft as attorney general, conservatives know that the Justice Department will vehemently oppose all forms of affirmative action programs and will push for allowing more of a religious presence in government, such as in school prayers, and more aid to religions, through charitable choice and voucher programs.

Democrats in the Senate should express outrage at such a conservative choice for one of the most important Cabinet positions. They should send the message now, early in a Bush administration, that such selections will not be accepted.

The Constitution is clear that it is not the president’s sole prerogative to pick the Cabinet; Senate confirmation is required. Rejecting Ashcroft will clearly express the view that the Senate is not going to rubber-stamp the president’s selections and will insist on moderate appointments. Ideally, some moderate Republicans will join Democratic senators in rejecting Ashcroft. This might be difficult, though, because of the Senate’s historic courtesy toward its former members and its reluctance to reject one of its own.

Even if bipartisan opposition to Ashcroft does not materialize, the Democrats clearly have the power to stop the nomination through a filibuster. With the Senate split 50-50, the Republicans obviously lack the 60 votes necessary to end a filibuster. There are many precedents of filibusters being used to block nominations, such as the Republicans filibustering President Clinton’s nomination of Henry Foster to be surgeon general.

Important judicial vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower courts likely will occur in the next four years. The Democrats must show that they are ready and willing to block right-wing nominations. Stopping the nomination of Ashcroft would make it far more likely that Bush will pick from the middle in the future.

The only way to heal the wounds of the deeply divisive election of 2000 is by a moderate approach in policy and appointments. Ashcroft is the worst possible nominee to achieve that goal.