Likes is a third-year English student.
By Ryan Likes
I am responding to the “Thumbs up/Thumbs down” that
discussed the nomination of John Ashcroft for U.S. Attorney General
(“Boxer
leads opposition to Ashcroft," Viewpoint, Jan. 17). I ask that
in the future, the Daily Bruin Editorial Board would look a little
more thoroughly into issues before making such assured statements
about Ashcroft. The spurious nature of the piece ignores many
important facts.
For instance, the piece begins with concern about
Ashcroft’s “extreme right-wing views” and the
influence they will have on our justice department and the laws of
the country. The two statements that serve as evidence for this
proclamation are that he is anti-abortion and racist.
With regards to his opposition to abortion, polls have
consistently suggested that the U.S. population is largely divided
on the issue. Thus, being anti-abortion hardly means Ashcroft, or
anyone with this position, should be considered
“extreme.”
The second charge is even more acrimonious. The piece reads
“Ashcroft … expresses racist views.” I was quite
surprised at this revelation and eagerly read on in order to
discover the Editorial Board’s evidence to support such a
proclamation. But the only evidence offered up for this very harsh
charge was that Ashcroft opposed Ronnie White’s appointment
to the Federal Bench.
The reason Ashcroft opposed White is simple ““ White was
soft on crime. This was clearly seen in a case appealed to the
Missouri Supreme Court where a man was convicted of killing three
police officers and the wife of one of the officers. After
reviewing the case, every member of the Missouri Supreme Court
voted to uphold the death penalty verdict except for White.
If one still thinks that Ashcroft led the charge against White
because he is African American, then perhaps the fact that as a
senator, Ashcroft voted to confirm 26 out of 28 African Americans
nominations to the federal bench will assuage your concern.
The Editorial Board’s piece next lays out its concern that
Ashcroft is dangerous because he is a very religious man who
believes that “religion and Christian values are important in
shaping politics and public policy.” Every person brings
their own view to the table and is influenced by it. This is
obvious and usually does not need pointing out. Atheists,
agnostics, Muslims, etc. all bring their presuppositions about the
nature of the universe and their place in it to the discussion,
whether they admit to it or not.
I do not see why Christians should be placed in a separate group
that should not be allowed to participate in our government, as the
Board implies.
The Board then describes why a person who holds actual beliefs
is so dangerous in a position as attorney general ““ he may
have to go against what he believes in order to do his job. Once
again, this is not a terribly brilliant observation.
If one is aware of the amazing amount of laws in the United
States today, and if we disqualify anyone who does not agree with
all of them, then we would have no judicial system. This is all
nonsense.
If you disagree with me and believe Ashcroft cannot properly
execute his office when confirmed because he disagrees with certain
elements of it, then all you have to do is examine his record as
attorney general of Missouri and you will find otherwise. And just
for the record, current Attorney General Janet Reno has her
disagreements with the law as well (as has every other attorney
general in U.S. history). Indeed she has made public statements
that suggest a personal opposition to the death penalty.
I found the Board’s appraisal of Ashcroft bordering on
slander. And after thoroughly discussing how grave a threat this
man is and how we should do anything and everything possible to
block his confirmation, the Board closes by saying that “we
hope other senators will follow her (Senator Boxer’s) example
and take a stand against someone who represents
intolerance.”
The Editorial Board should be more straightforward and simply
say that they do not like the views of John Ashcroft and therefore
hope that he does not get confirmed instead of making up charges
that are impossible to substantiate in an effort to destroy his
credibility.