Can John Ashcroft Overcome His Ideology?
US Senator Charles E. Schumer

The partisan sniping by both liberals and conservatives over the nomination of John Ashcroft for attorney general has already begun to obscure the legitimate issues the Senate must consider before voting on this important cabinet post.

The right is claiming that the president should be allowed to choose whomever he wants and is threatening to run radio advertisements against any senator who opposes Mr. Ashcroft's appointment. The left is appalled that the president-elect chose a man from the far-right wing and has accused Mr. Ashcroft of being racially insensitive and averse to the rights of women. As each day -- and each news cycle -- goes by, the tensions mount and the rhetoric escalates. This is, unfortunately, a familiar state of politics, one with which we have been living for more than 15 years. No one is without blame: Clinton nominees were raked over the coals, just as Bush and Reagan nominees were before them. Now is the time to turn away from destructive political tactics and focus instead on providing full and fair hearings for the president's nominees.

The upcoming Ashcroft hearings could serve as a model of fairness and bipartisanship. We should carefully analyze the responsibilities of the attorney general and then closely scrutinize Senator Ashcroft's extensive record to determine whether he can fully, impartially and adequately perform all of those duties.

Of course, nothing is ever as simple as it sounds. Merely asking the nominee whether he could do the job would not be useful. Rather, the hearings should probe into the nominee's positions on each of the many different areas of law that the attorney general must enforce.

The Senate Judiciary Committee should determine whether, given his beliefs and record, Mr. Ashcroft can fairly enforce all the laws of our country. The committee should also scrutinize how Mr. Ashcroft would divvy up the Justice Department's enormous resources, in light of the many competing priorities facing the agency.

We could all agree, I think, that someone who had for 20 years promoted the view that illegal drugs should be decriminalized and that dealing should be legal could not be counted on to be our attorney general. Such a nominee would surely be rejected, no matter how much he or she promised to prosecute drug dealers. Likewise, the Judiciary Committee hearings should illuminate whether the nominee's views on issues like gun control, reproductive choice, and civil rights put him so far outside the mainstream that we would have little confidence in his ability to enforce and uphold these laws.

Neither party has been above rejecting nominees because of their ideological views. Democrats turned back Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court and Republicans refused to confirm the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to head the Justice Department's civil rights division. While reasonable people could disagree about whether these nominees should have been rejected, one thing is certain: It is entirely legitimate to explore whether a nominee for attorney general holds views that would disable him from enforcing and defending the laws of the land.

John Ashcroft is a man of strong convictions, and I doubt that at the hearings he will shrink from his record of outspoken conservatism. For example, he freely admits that if he could pass a single law, he would outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. The obvious question then becomes:Will Mr. Ashcroft devote adequate resources to enforcing federal laws that criminalize violence at abortion clinics? He is likely to testify that he will enforce these laws, but what priority will he give these matters?

Probing the nominee's beliefs and record is not meant to embarrass or undermine him. Rather, full, fair and extensive hearings are intended to ensure that Mr. Ashcroft can do the job and to give the nation confidence in Mr. Bush's choice.

It is too soon to predict the outcome of the hearings. Senator Ashcroft surely deserves the chance to answer the hard questions and present his side of the story. Personally, I plan to keep an open mind and spend my time analyzing -- and not politicizing -- John Ashcroft's record. I hope that others will do the same.