CONFIRMATION CONFLICT
January 16 , 2000

Margaret Warner discusses John Ashcroft's Senate confirmation hearings with two former Justice Department nominees.

 

Online Specials: Bush/Cheney Transition Biography: John Ashcroft Jan. 12, 2001: Shields and Gigot look at Chavez and Ashcroft Jan. 9, 2001: Linda Chavez withdraws from her labor nomination Jan. 8, 2001: Senators Leahy and Kyl discuss Bush's nominations Jan. 5, 2001: Shields and Brooks on the 107th Congress and Bush's nominations Jan. 2, 2001: Attorney general nominee Ashcroft's confirmation battle Jan. 2, 2001: Picks for Transportation, Labor and Energy Dec. 29, 2000: Shields and Brooks discuss the latest Cabinet picks Dec. 29, 2000: Bush announces picks for Education, Health and Human Services, Interior and Veterans Affairs Dec. 20, 2000: Bush nominates to Treasury, Commerce, Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development Dec. 18, 2000: Bush makes picks for Secretary of State, National Security Adviser and White House Counsel   Complete NewsHour coverage of Politics   George W. Bush Transition Department of Justice	MARGARET WARNER: We get some perspective on today's opening of the John Ashcroft confirmation process from two people who went through confirmation struggles of their own. William Bradford Reynolds headed the justice department's civil rights division throughout the Reagan administration. In 1985, Reagan nominated him to become associate attorney general, the number three post at Justice, but the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the promotion. He's now in private law practice in Washington. And Lani Guinier is a professor at Harvard Law School. President Clinton nominated her in 1993 to be the assistant attorney general for civil rights, but subsequently withdrew the appointment before any hearings after her writings on minority rights generated a firestorm of criticism from conservatives. Welcome to you both.
	A destructive confirmation process?
	WILLIAM BRADFORD REYNOLDS, Reagan Assistant Attorney General Nominee: Well, I think that what we heard and saw is what we should expect and hopefully will see for the rest of the hearing. I think that Senator Carnahan gave a wonderful opening statement. She put the hearings in the proper framework as to what the senators ought to do. I do believe that the thing that we need to... that the senators need to be careful of is coming on very strongly on issues against this man that have been raised by interest groups from outside the hearing that go much less to his qualifications and much more to their effort to somehow disparage or demean the character of the individual. MARGARET WARNER: You wrote an editorial or op-ed in the "New York Times" this past weekend in which you said you thought the confirmation process in general had become very destructive instead of constructive. Are you saying so far today, however, you didn't find those fears borne out? WILLIAM BRADFORD REYNOLDS: Well, I think today was your opening salvo and it's very hard to judge. The problem that I think we've all seen with the confirmation process is it has really deteriorated very much into a personal attack on these nominees well before they get into the process so that by the time they get there, outside interest groups have done an awful lot to shape people's attitudes about these individuals without ever knowing them, getting to hear what they have to say, or having the opportunity to have the confirmation process work its proper way through the whole course. Obviously on opening statements everybody is careful, and I think that it's scripted. And it's gone pretty much according to plan. I think the difficulty is that an awful lot has been done up to this point to try to disparage this... the attorney general, this nominee, and we'll see the extent to which that has basically already set some of the senators' minds at a point where they've reached a decision and they've already concluded, even though they're going through the motions. That's the concern about what happens with this process. MARGARET WARNER: Lani Guinier, what did you make of today? : Well, I didn't hear enough of the hearings to form a definitive conclusion or to reach a conclusion, but I did hear Senator Leahy's questioning of John Ashcroft, and I thought that Senator Leahy did an excellent job of trying to probe not what John Ashcroft says now but what John Ashcroft's record has revealed about both positions that he took when he was a senator challenging Bill Clinton's nominees as well as positions that he took when he was attorney general and was involved in litigating cases very similar to the kinds of cases that he would have to have responsibility for were he to be confirmed. MARGARET WARNER: So you're saying, in other words, that you don't think it's enough if John Ashcroft says, as he said today, I regard Roe v. Wade as the law of the land or I'm for integration, not for segregation. You think it's perfectly proper to go back and look at what he's said or done in the past? LANI GUINIER: This is the only opportunity that we have in our political system to really hear a debate on the merits of public policy, so certainly. This is not just sound bite politics. This should be substantive public policy debate. And yes, I think especially with a public servant who has a career that is as extensive as John Ashcroft's and where his career has been as relevant to the particular issues that he will be charged with enforcing, if he is confirmed, yes, it's absolutely imperative to look at the facts and look at the actions that he has taken and not just the statements that he may be making for the purpose of gaining confirmation.
	Ability to vigorously enforce the law
	MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Reynolds, of course, the issue both sides identified as the issue is could a man who so passionately believes that many of these laws are wrong now passionately or vigorously enforce them? Both sides -- senators from both camps -- essentially pointed to the past record and Ashcroft did too. How is a senator ultimately to know? WILLIAM BRADFORD REYNOLDS: Well, this man has a record that is second to none in terms of the nominees and appointees that have been named for attorney general over the past recent memory. He has performed admirably as attorney general for two terms. He's been a governor for two terms. He's been a senator. His track record is out there. I think that any fair inquiry into his policy and practices over the past 30 years is going to find him eminently qualified. And I feel supremely confident that he will be confirmed. I think that the concern that everybody really has to have about the process is the one that Senator Specter identified: If it deteriorates into partisan name calling, if it deteriorates into a divisive contest between the two sides of the aisle, Senator Ashcroft's record gets lost in that, the interest groups' noise and clatter from the outside becomes the dominant force, and it does not serve the country well and certainly does not serve the process well. And I think that's the concern. MARGARET WARNER: Ms. Guinier, both you and Mr. Reynolds had bad experiences with outside interest groups essentially attacking your records when you were nominated. Do you think - and there was a debate today in the hearing between Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch about the appropriate role of these outside groups -- do you think they have a legitimate role to play? LANI GUINIER: I think that the American people need to hear from all of the groups that have an interest in this nomination. My particular experience was not with outside interest groups attacking my record during a confirmation process but sabotaging the ability of the Senate to even have a confirmation process. I never had a hearing. I was always eager for a hearing, and I think that's what we finally have here in John Ashcroft's case. What I would like to say in response to something that Brad Reynolds said, this is not about the jobs that John Ashcroft has held. This is not about the positions in terms of status that he has held. These are about the public policy positions that he has enforced, and the actions that he has taken in areas of civil rights, women's reproductive rights, gun control. And I think it is really important for the American people to hear what his positions are, not only because he would be the chief law enforcement official, not only because our political process has tended to channel many political issues into the law enforcement realm but because we don't know what George Bush believes about many of these issues. We have a political system in which the debate on the issues, which we are finally having in the confirmation process, should have taken place before the election. But because the candidates are encouraged to muffle their political positions, we don't know what they stand for. So this is an opportunity not only to see what John Ashcroft has done in terms of whether he's enforced civil rights vigorously or whether, as the evidence seems to suggest, he has been resistant. Bill Taylor has testimony in the record, as I understand it, analogizing John Ashcroft's behavior in St. Louis as the attorney general from Missouri with some of the massive resistance that Bill Taylor who was a civil rights lawyer experienced in the '60s. But this is not just about John Ashcroft. This is also about George Bush's positions and whether he endorses this kind of public policy stance.
	Airing the record
	MARGARET WARNER: So, Mr. Reynolds, what about that point Ms. Guinier is making, which is all these things should be aired whether they're brought to the table by outside interest groups or whatever? WILLIAM BRADFORD REYNOLDS: Well, I think it's appropriate to air these issues. As I say, if we look at his record, I am supremely confident that he will be confirmed and be confirmed with most Americans quite comfortable with this attorney general. But I don't think that it is appropriate to, for example, label this man's views as extremist or out of the mainstream in terms of what the interest groups seem to have done as a build-up to the hearing. I agree that we look at his record. I agree that we look at the man's views on policy issues. And I think that as the senators said, if they probe them responsibly and constructively, that this is a very decent, honest and honorable man and he will come through with flying colors. MARGARET WARNER: But you touch on...go ahead. WILLIAM BRADFORD REYNOLDS: I'm just saying that I think the outside clatter that puts a lot of hyperbole in of us using the words extremism and outside the mainstream and those kinds of adjectives don't serve the purpose well and they don't serve the process well. And it is tends to and is indeed calculated to simply color people's views before they even know what the nominee has to say or what he has done. MARGARET WARNER: Let me follow up on that with you though. You touch on issues again that both camps touched on today or senators from both sides which is, do you think for an attorney general to be effective he or she should be in "the mainstream" however one defines that of thought on most of the issues that an attorney general deals with? Do you think that's important or do you think that an ideologue of either side can be an effective attorney general? WILLIAM BRADFORD REYNOLDS: Well, I think it is important. I think that one of the things everybody has to be careful of is whose mainstream are we talking about? It's very easy for both sides to stand up and point a finger and say, you're outside the mainstream. We had a very close election. It's difficult for me to envision that anybody that is named on the cabinet so far that's been nominated that I'm aware of could be outside the mainstream. And there's nothing that I've heard about Senator Ashcroft's --Senator Ashcroft's views or positions over the past 30 years that would begin to suggest that he should even be considered as being labeled as outside the mainstream. MARGARET WARNER: Let me get Ms. Guinier's points. WILLIAM BRADFORD REYNOLDS: So I think those kinds of hyperboles don't serve the process well. If you're trying to find out what this man has done and what he believes in and how he's handled himself. MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Ms. Guinier, what's your view on that question: How important is it for an Attorney General to be sort of in the moderate middle as opposed to an ideologue? LANI GUINIER: I think there's a difference between an attorney general who is going to enforce the law and an attorney general who is in the moderate middle. This is not about trying to describe his political views. This is trying to assess his willingness to enforce the law. And I think what you will see in terms of these hearings is that he has shown an unwillingness to enforce the law when he has been given an opportunity to do so as an elected official in Missouri. But I want to make one additional point. Brad Reynolds said that this was a close election. Some people don't even think that there was a resolution to this election. George Bush maximum got 25 percent of the vote. MARGARET WARNER: Ms. Guinier, I'm sorry. We're just about out of time. I'm going to have to leave it there. Thank you both very much.