Ashcroft, Under Fire, Vows to Uphold the Law

Attorney general nominee John Ashcroft, facing what he called a “machine gun of charges” at the start of his Senate confirmation hearing, declared Tuesday that “the law is supreme” and vowed to resign if his personal beliefs ever prevented him from upholding it.

The former Missouri senator also pledged to respect Roe vs. Wade and related abortion decisions as “the settled law of the land,” and to protect all Americans from discrimination without regard to race, gender or disability.

But his assurances appeared to do little to appease several skeptical--and at times openly hostile--Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who attacked his conservative record on abortion, civil rights and other issues.

The first of at least three days of hearings was marked by political squabbling among members of a panel deeply divided over whether their well-liked former colleague is fit for the job as the nation’s top law enforcement official.

Although Ashcroft still appears likely to be confirmed by the Senate, Tuesday’s session lived up to expectations as the most heated hearing for a Cabinet nominee in a dozen years. As Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) noted, the battle lines were so well drawn that it was “pretty hard to even agree on a schedule” for the proceeding.

Democrats Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts led the charge against Ashcroft. They grilled him on a host of issues--including why he had opposed plans in Missouri for school desegregation and voter registration reforms, and why as a U.S. senator he had opposed several minorities who were nominated for political and judicial positions.

Kennedy, answering a question raised both by Ashcroft’s supporters and his attackers, said he doubted that Ashcroft would be able to set aside his deep-seated religious and personal views in enforcing the nation’s laws. “His past actions strongly suggest that he will not. . . . Actions speak louder than words,” Kennedy said.

Leahy, who chaired the hearing, was no less pointed.

“Throughout your public life, as attorney general and governor of Missouri and as U.S. senator,” he told Ashcroft, “you have opposed a woman’s constitutionally protected right to reproductive freedom and choice--even in cases of rape and incest; you have fought voluntary school desegregation, affirmative action and gay rights. . . . Now, given that history, you can understand why some might be troubled by it.”

Leahy was particularly interested in Ashcroft’s opposition to the 1997 nomination of then-Los Angeles attorney Bill Lann Lee as head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division. The nomination stalled in the Senate, so President Clinton appointed Lee on an acting basis.

At the time, Ashcroft voiced concerns that Lee’s past role as a civil rights advocate and supporter of affirmative action might “limit his capacity” to enforce the law as head of the civil rights division. “We don’t need an individual who is trying to go against the Constitution as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court,” Ashcroft said then.

Leahy suggested that there might be a double standard at work--since Lee, like Ashcroft, had pledged to enforce the law as it was written.

But Ashcroft yielded no ground, appearing agitated and sometimes hard-edged in his responses.

He said his opposition was well-founded because, in his judgment, “Mr. Lee did not indicate a clear willingness to enforce the law” regarding the limitations of affirmative action programs in government contracts.

Ashcroft also defended his record in Missouri, saying that his Democratic interrogators were mischaracterizing his record on desegregation in St. Louis and Kansas City.

As state attorney general, Ashcroft said, he opposed two desegregation plans because he thought they unfairly saddled the state of Missouri with millions of dollars in financial costs, not because he opposed the integration of the cities’ schools.

Ashcroft and his Republican supporters also recited a list of Missouri cases in which they said the Pentecostal minister’s son took legal positions that were potentially at odds with his personal beliefs.

Ashcroft recounted that in 1979, he issued a legal opinion as state attorney general declaring that a local board of education in Missouri could not authorize the distribution of religious publications on school grounds.

In 1980, Ashcroft noted, he found that Missouri law did not require a death certificate to be issued for a fetus less than 20 weeks old, even though he believes that life begins at conception. And in 1981, Ashcroft added, he declared--despite the demands of anti-abortion groups--that Missouri law did not allow the public release of the number of abortions performed by particular hospitals.

“Throughout my tenure,” Ashcroft said, “I did my level best to enforce fully and faithfully the laws as they were written without regard to any personal policy preferences.

“My primary personal belief is that the law is supreme,” he added.

Indeed, Ashcroft stressed that his religious beliefs compel him to enforce the law. “And if in some measure, somehow, I were to encounter a situation where [his religious beliefs and the law] came into conflict so that I could not respond to this faith heritage which requires me to enforce the law, then I would have to resign.”

In a 25-minute prepared statement, Ashcroft sought to answer critics of his civil rights record by laying out several priorities that he said would be stressed at his Justice Department if he is confirmed.

Among them, Ashcroft said, are these: “No American should be turned away from a polling place because of the color of her skin or the sound of his name; no American should be denied access to public accommodations or a job as a result of a disability . . . and no woman should fear being threatened or coerced in seeking constitutionally protected health services.”

This last assurance was in direct response to women’s rights activists who charge that Ashcroft is likely to gut the enforcement of a 1994 federal law aimed at preventing violence and intimidation at abortion clinics. Atty. Gen. Janet Reno has marshaled department resources to safeguard clinics.

Ashcroft said that he believes Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 decision establishing a woman’s right to an abortion, “was wrongly decided. I am personally opposed to abortion.”

But, he said, “I well understand that the role of the attorney general is to enforce the law as it is, not as I would have it. I accept Roe and Casey [a 1992 Supreme Court decision reaffirming the right to abortion] as the settled law of the land. If confirmed as attorney general, I will follow the law in this area, and in all other areas.”

Republicans on the panel took him at his word, with several suggesting that Ashcroft’s integrity was being unfairly impugned because of his deep religious convictions.

“Yes, he loves his God,” said Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.). “That’s not a disqualifier; that’s a qualifier. That’s not a divider; that’s a uniter.”

Reminding his Democratic colleagues that Janet Reno was confirmed as attorney general in 1993 on a 98-0 vote, Smith said: “If I can vote for Janet Reno, you can vote for John Ashcroft.”

But Ashcroft received no pledges of support from any Democrats. The closest he came was the vow from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and several other moderates that they would keep an open mind in the face of serious questions about his positions.

Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) said Democrats should try to live by the political golden rule: “Do unto the Republicans as we would have the Republicans do unto us.”

A president should have broad discretion to choose like-minded advisors, Feingold said. But the Republicans’ recent history of blocking many of Clinton’s nominees has made that rule tougher to follow--particularly in light of Ashcroft’s alarming positions on a host of civil rights issues, Feingold said. “This is a very painful nomination for many Americans,” he added.

Ashcroft’s hearing continues this morning.