Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (3276)	1/18/2001 2:54:49 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

True. I can't believe this is happening -a confirmation of a religious fanatic for AG As someone pointed out, if Bush has nominated Helms, all hell would have broken loose. Yet, Ashcroft is to the right of Helms.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (3276)	1/18/2001 4:11:03 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 6089

Here are Lani Guiner's position on her experience as the nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights during Clinton's first term.. She also gives her opinion on the John Ascroft nomination -Mephisto . Excerpts aired on Jim Lehrer News Hour, January 16, 2001 MARGARET WARNER: 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. 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. 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: 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. pbs.org Copyright © 2001 MacNeil-Lehrer