Rage over cabinet nominee useless

Tor is a second-year political science student.  
Illustration by GRACE HUANG/Daily Bruin

By Chey Tor

It has been barely a week since George W. Bush has assumed the
office he seemed to have wanted most since his major re-election
landslide victory as Texas governor. Many of his cabinet posts are
filled, including two of the most important ones: secretary of
state and secretary of defense, filled by Colin Powell and Donald
Rumsfeld, respectively.

But a major post that remains to be decided is attorney general,
the chief law enforcement officer in America. President Bush has
put forth John Ashcroft as his choice to head the Department of
Justice. Bush believes that the former U.S. senator, governor and
attorney general from Missouri is a qualified individual, who is
more than capable of carrying out the duties as head of
justice.

As many of us are well aware, however, his nomination process is
not sailing as smoothly as others’. Certain groups in America
have openly declared war on Ashcroft’s attempt to succeed
Janet Reno. Among these groups are abortion rights advocates, civil
rights champions, environmentalists, women’s rights
supporters, gay rights activists, gun control proponents and so
on.

All of these groups believe that Ashcroft will undo the results
they have painstakingly worked so hard to achieve. They pointed out
his “ultra-conservative” record as a public servant in
Missouri. Citing his record opposing abortion rights and resisting
federal efforts to desegregate public schools as well as supporting
gun owners’ rights, many of them ask, “How can he
possibly enforce laws that he doesn’t agree with?”

I have this question for Ashcroft’s critics: Does an
official have to agree with the laws that are to be enforced in
order to be attorney general? If I understand it correctly, the
answer is no. Nowhere in the U. S. Constitution or in any
legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president states
that an individual must agree with the laws that he or she is to
enforce. There is no such criterion.

Sure, agreement with the laws would help make the job much
better, but it is not necessary.

I can understand the concerns and worries expressed by the
groups that have made their sentiments known to the public. They
have the right to do so. But they are wasting their time and
resources in attempting to derail John Ashcroft from becoming
America’s next attorney general.

It is pretty much assured that Ashcroft will soon be leading the
Justice Department in enforcing America’s federal laws. It
can be expected that all 50 Republicans in the Senate will vote for
Ashcroft.

And, a number of Democrats are leaning toward giving Ashcroft
their votes, with a handful publicly expressing their support.
These senators know full well that Ashcroft is a qualified
candidate who will enforce the laws that are in the books,
regardless of whether he agrees with them or not.

“I think (Ashcroft) will be confirmed comfortably,”
with support from between 60 and 70 senators, said GOP leader Trent
Lott recently.

With that said, why can’t Ashcroft critics accept the
reality that the Missourian nominee will be their attorney general
for the next four years and move on to the next battle mode?

Groups that oppose Ashcroft should continue to keep their radar
on him, yet, at the same time, tone down their opposition to the
attorney general nominee. Ashcroft’s critics can cry out as
loud as they want, but it’s not going to do anything useful
other than to really make sure that Americans know who their next
attorney general will be.

If the groups ring the anti-Ashcroft bell too hard, they may
start to alienate themselves from the more moderate Americans.

I will admit that Ashcroft is a bit too conservative for my
taste but I can live with his existence. His colleagues in the
Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, have said that he is a man
of honor and integrity. These are two important traits public
servants should possess. Without either, they are bound to no one
but themselves and destined for corruption.

Unfortunately, that is a common occurrence in Washington and in
our society.

Sure, I disagree with Ashcroft on a number of his personal
views. But as long as he enforces the law fairly and
indiscriminately as attorney general, which he has pledged to do
during his confirmation hearings, America will be fine.

During his hearings, Ashcroft promised the Senate Judiciary
Committee that he would be a fair and impartial U.S. attorney
general. “I understand that being the attorney general means
enforcing the laws as they are written, not enforcing my own
personal preferences,” he said. “It means advancing the
national interest, not advocating my personal interests.”

Offering an example of how he would enforce federal laws,
Ashcroft said, “no woman should fear being threatened or
coerced” in gaining access to abortion clinics. Although he
said that he believes Roe v. Wade was “wrongly
decided,” he called the decision “the settled law of
the land.”

That sounds like an attorney general nominee who’ll have
little problem enforcing laws contrary to his personal views. The
Senate will approve Ashcroft, 62-38. Let me know, if otherwise.