[Jesse Jackson:] Welcome to BOTH SIDES from Orlando, Florida this week. In a few days, George W. Bush will become the next president. Of all of his appointments, the most controversial seems to have been John Ashcroft from Missouri for Attorney General. Today, we want to talk about that with two of my very special guests. Joining me from Springfield, Missouri, Missouri Republican Congressman Roy Block is a long time friend of Senator Ashcroft and he is President-elect Bush's Congressional liasion. And in New York is Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the member of the House Judiciary Committee. Welcome both of you to the program.
[Rep. Roy Block , Missouri:] Good morning.
[Rep. Jerrold Nadler , New York:] Good to be with you.
[Jackson:] We'll begin our discussion in just a moment, but first some words from John Bisney.
[George W. Bush, President-elect:] Today it's my honor and privilege to submit three more nominations to my Cabinet.
[John Bisney, Cnn Correspondent:] With the announcement of his nominees to head the Commerce, Labor and Energy departments, President-elect Bush this past week completed the selection of his administration's top Cabinet appointments. But while the diversity of Bush's choices is being praised by both Republicans and Democrats, they're not without controversy. One Cabinet nominee who will likely face a tough grilling in Senate confirmation hearings is former Missouri Senator Ashcroft, the President-elect's choice to be Attorney General. Ashcroft is a staunch opponent of legalized abortion and gun control. The ranking Democrat on the committee that will consider the nomination says Ashcroft's stands on certain issues are of concern.
[Sen. Patrick Leahy , Delaware:] Will he enforce the laws that protect a Planned Parenthood clinic from firebombers and others? Will he enforce the Fair Employment, the Equal Rights laws, whether he's for them or not as a legislator?
[Bisney:] There are also questions about Ashcroft's commitment to civil rights, especially his role in defeating the nomination of Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronny White, an African American, for a federal judgeship. Despite promises by civil and women's rights groups to fight Ashcroft's nomination, he's all but certain to get the nod from his former colleagues in the Senate.
[Sen. John Breaux , Louisiana:] Ashcroft is probably more conservative than over 90, 95 percent of his Senate colleagues, but I think he has a great deal of respect for his honesty and for his integrity.
[Bisney:] Liberal groups are hoping even if Ashcroft is confirmed, their opposition will make the new Bush administration more cautious about controversial nominations in the future. For BOTH SIDES, I'm John Bisney.
[Jackson:] Congressman Block, this matter of Ashcroft has created great concern. He has taken very strong positions against a woman's right to choose in case of rape or incest. He's taken a real strong position against Affirmative Action. He supports right to work laws. He's engendered a lot of fear. You think he's a good nominee for a position that requires so much broadbased respect and support?
[Block:] Well, what he really brings to this job will be a broadbase of experience. Now certainly he brings positions on issues as somebody who's been in the Senate, who's voted day after day will, but he also brings experiences, the Governor of Missouri experiences, the Attorney General and the state auditor of Missouri and his eight years as Attorney General or his eight years as Governor, John Ashcroft often enforced and even implemented laws that he clearly did not agree with. One example would be the state lottery in our state, which by the standards of how you measure lotteries, been a great success. John Ashcroft was not for it, told the voters of Missouri he wasn't for it in his first election for Governor. They voted for him. They voted for a lottery. He implemented the lottery in a way that's made it very successful. As Attorney General, he was never accused of not vigorously enforcing the laws of the state. And I'm sure as Attorney General of the United States, his personal views will be less important than his commitment, which will be all important to obey the Constitution and enforce the law.
[Jackson:] Congressman Nadler, do you think it is a bit hypocritical for him to be expected to enforce laws that he disagrees with, that he in fact if he is against a woman's right of set determination, if he's against Affirmative Action, do you think he will support the laws that he is against?
[Nadler:] Well, it's the obligation of any official in the executive branch, especially the Attorney General, to enforce the laws, whether he agrees with it or not. It's certainly his right and his privilege to urge that any law he disagrees with be changed by Congress if he wants to, but he must enforce the laws. That's the obligation of the office. And people, when you have such an extreme partisan, Senator Ashcroft, partisan on issues, I don't mean Democratic Republican partisan, I mean partisan on issues of being opposed to a woman's freedom of choice even when the pregnancy resulted, for example, from rape or incest, someone insists that as a matter of law, she must carry that baby to term, even if the pregnancy came from rape or incest, one questions how with what strength he will enforce the law the freedom of access to [inaudible].
[Jackson:] Could given his position about a woman's right of choice, his positions on labor and the environment, could you vote to confirm him?
[Nadler:] If I were in the Senate, I certainly would not vote to confirm him.
[Jackson:] Mr. Block, respond to that.
[Block:] Well, you know, I have both a huge advantage and a huge disadvantage here. And the huge advantage is that I've known John Ashcroft well for almost 30 years now and I've seen him in action as a public official. I've talked to him often about his faith, his view of the world reaching out to people. I've seen him take the oath of office over and over again and then fulfill that oath. And that will be the determining factor. And what happens in the Attorney General's office is his commitment to enforce the law. It's up to Jerry and I and others like us in the House and the Senate to pass the laws. It's up to the Supreme ultimately to the Supreme Court in the court process to determine what that law is, but John Ashcroft will vigorously execute the law that's on the books because that's his job and he'll take an oath to do that before he does a single official thing.
[Jackson:] Well, in terms of his voting record, Dr. [Satcher], one of our ablest surgeon generals, he voted against him on the basis that as a doctor he terms a woman's right of set determination. In the case of Ronny White, according to St. Louis Dispatch, he literally libeled him, calling him a judge who supports criminality based upon a matter of the death penalty when 7 out of 10 times supports it. Don't you think that his attack on Ronny White was a big extreme and threatening?
[Block:] Well, when you look at the two cases that were really a problem in the Ronny White confirmation, I don't think that. Now I know Ronny White. When I was the Secretary of State of Missouri, he was in the legislature. I like him, but I do think that just as Jerry suggested, he'd have a problem in confirmation of somebody he disagreed with, particularly to a judgeship where a judge enforces the law often from his perspective. I think that does make a difference. You know, the real case in the Ronny White case is terribly unfortunate case where a person had been convicted, a white man of killing a number of people, sheriff's deputies, the sheriff's wife in several different incidents, not one incident where he had to go from place to place to do this, almost 77 of Missourans, 114 sheriffs motivated by the sheriff whose wife was killed, I'm sure, who started a petition drive, asked that Ronny White not be confirmed. And he wasn't.
[Jackson:] Well...
[Block:] I think John Ashcroft voted for 26 of the 28 African American nominees to the court while he was in the Senate. And there were few cases where he disagreed with that judge's philosophy on cases like that one.
[Nadler:] Well, my problem with the Ronny White case is not that he disagreed on two cases. I mean, you don't know the a judge has to look at all the details of a case. The case you just cited, for instance, I think I read in the paper that the question was whether he was insane or not. And that was the defense. And Judge White ruled that the defense was not given an adequate hearing and it should be looked at again in court. And I don't know whether the man was insane or not or whether he got an adequate hearing. But the fact is that Senator Ashcroft slandered Ronny White. He said he was pro-criminal. He issued decisions favoring murder, his rapists, drug dealers and other heinous criminals. He was and that he would never uphold the death penalty, when in fact he upheld 70 percent of the death penalties before him. It's very dangerous, very dangerous to look at a judge who has hundreds of thousands of cases and pick out one or two because you don't know the people on the outside don't know the details or in fact that killer was obviously heinous, but maybe he was also insane. So the question should never look at one or two cases. You look a man's overall record. And my problem with the Ronny White situation is not that Senator Ashcroft opposed a nominee who happened to be black. It's that he slandered quite inaccurately and opposed the nomination on grounds that weren't true on someone who had a long record, contrary to the way he was characterized.
[Jackson:] We'll be right back.
[Block:] Jerry...
[Jackson:] We'll be right back. Wait, we'll be back in a moment. Just back in a moment. Should John Ashcroft be confirmed and will he? We'll be right back. [COMMERCIAL BREAK.] Joining me this week to discuss the Ashcroft controversial nomination from Missouri, Republican Congressman Roy Block. He's a long time friend of Senator Ashcroft and President- elect Bush's Congressional liaison. And in New York, Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler, a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Welcome both of you again. Mr. Block, Mr. Ashcroft is a man of strong faith and religious convictions. If he in fact enforces the law of Affirmative Action and supports the law of Roe v. Wade, is he not putting his politics over his faith? And is that ethically sound?
[Block:] Well, I'm not quite sure how you phrase that question, where those things come together? There's no question...
[Jackson:] My point is, if he's religiously opposed to Roe v. Wade, why would he accept the job to uphold Roe v. Wade? If he's against Affirmative Action, why would he accept a job to uphold laws he disagrees with?
[Block:] Well, I you know, he's had a history of being able to do that, to obey the law. At the same time, he doesn't have to agree with every law as long as he's doing his duty to enforce that law and see that the law is obeyed. And I'm confident he'd do that. Anytime you're in public office, particularly in a role like Governor or Attorney General of the state or Attorney General of the United States, they'll be laws on the books that you aren't fully in agreement with from everything from the kind of serious of things you discuss to other laws that you just may not think are necessary, but they've been passed by the people whose job it is to pass those laws. The courts have determined that that's the way the law is to be enforced. And it's your job to do that. You know, one of the reasons he that a person of faith often uses a Bible when they take the oath of office is suddenly that oath they take has a preeminent obligation for them to do what they just promised themselves, their God and the people that they hope to work for that they would do.
[Jackson:] Mr. Nadler, we live in our faith. We live under the law. Could one expect Mr. Ashcroft to enforce with enthusiasm laws with which he disagrees relative to women and workers and basic civil rights of ethnic minorities. Can one trust him to do that?
[Nadler:] Well, I don't know that I don't have the advantage and the disadvantage that Roy Block has. I don't know Senator Ashcroft, certainly not for 30 years. So we have to go by the public record. I feel very uncomfortable with referring to a man's religious faith in this respect at all. I don't think that's the question. I think you look at the man's public record over the years. I may disagree religiously with certain things, but it's my duty as a public official to say that I don't impose my religious views on other people. And I have to legislate based on my opinion of the common good, not on my religious convictions.
[Jackson:] Well, my point is the Religious Right is a major factor in political judgment priorities. And so, look at his supporters, whether it's Pat Robertson or whether it is Jerry Falwell or Gary Bauer. These his key supporters are very much against laws that he has voted against. He's expected now to uphold.
[Nadler:] The problem I have with the Religious Right is not their religious views, but that they seek to impose the consequences of those religious views into law on all the rest of us. And that, I very much oppose. Now Mr. Ashcroft has shown, I think by his public record over the years and by his public statements over the years, that he is of such an extremist point of view that one could not trust him, not only to enforce the law or the laws as they are, but to make judgments as to which cases will be appealed and which won't. Someone who opposed a voluntary school desegregation plan, someone who has praised a pro-Confederate magazine that thinks that Abraham Lincoln was a terrible person, those views are just so out of line with what you want the views of someone who's supposed to uphold the law, laws regarding quality and [inaudible].
[Jackson:] In this essential question, can a broad spectrum of Americans trust Mr. Ashcroft the moral tone of the country and to set their legal priorities?
[Block:] Well, certainly you can trust John Ashcroft to in terms of setting the moral tone of the office, to never do anything in the Attorney General's office that's an embarrassment to himself or the country, to take his oath of office seriously. And really, I think the more important record here is the record of his public service, where he has clearly enforced laws that he wasn't fully in agreement with. At the same time, you don't want a person whose had a lifetime of public service, to have their views unknown. Now I'm sure John Ashcroft would defend Abraham Lincoln if he was here. I probably should do that. You know, in 26 or so years as a public official, you make lots of statements, some of which out of in a different context can appear to be different than they were. That's what the Senate confirmation process is about, to say, "Here's what somebody says you said. Can you explain what that meant and how it might affect the job you're about to take?" And also, the point here is that many that Governor Bush has confidence in John Ashcroft to do this job and to do enforce the laws of the country and give him the kind of sound legal advice that a president of the United States needs.
[Jackson:] Well, we'll come right back. Does George W. Bush have the mandate to create such a disruptive controversy in this position? And should the Democrats choose collegiality over civil rights? We'll be right back. [COMMERCIAL BREAK.] Mr. Nadler, we hear some Democrats saying on television, we may not agree with Mr. Ashcroft's views on a woman's right to choose. We may not agree with the position on civil rights and the Ronny White case in Missouri, but collegiality. Should Democratic senators choose collegiality and personal friendship over public policy?
[Nadler:] I don't think so. Of course, I'm not a senator, but I don't think that I don't so at all.
[Jackson:] Even though the congressman...
[Nadler:] No, I don't think so. The president is entitled to a certain deference in his appointments of non-judicial administrative candidates. And he's entitled to that deference, but the Senate has the duty to advise and consent or to reject the Senate's rejected two nominees by President Clinton earlier in the first month of the administration to be attorney general because of minor indiscretions with nannies. Certainly if senators feel that this candidate for Attorney General that his views are too extreme so that they wouldn't want him making those legal judgments or that they couldn't trust him to enforce the laws with which he disagreed, that's a perfectly valid grounds. In fact, I would think they would be duty bound to vote to oppose him if they can't answer those questions satisfactorily.
[Jackson:] Mr. Block, there's this thing called the Ashcroft standard. He used a standard, an ideological standard in voting against Surgeon General. He used an Ashcroft standard in killing the nomination of Ronny White. The Democrats used an ideological public policy standard over and against private collegiality?
[Block:] Well, I'm not really familiar with the concept of the Ashcroft standard, but I do know that the people that have worked with John Ashcroft trust him. I've heard a number of Democrat senators who don't agree with him necessarily on every issue, say they believe that he will fairly do the job and take his oath of office, his responsibility seriously. And that list is beginning to grow. And these are people who most of them for six years or some portion of six years have seen John Ashcroft at work day after day. They know how he treats people as an individual. His father was a minister and a university president. His grandfather was a minister. He as a person reaches out to people, Jesse. He will not hold the kind of extreme positions that I think you're hearing talked about. He'll reach out. You'll see an attorney general's office that is reflective as the Cabinet of the diversity of America.
[Jackson:] The people of Missouri saw him up close. And they just rejected him. We'll be right back in just a moment. [COMMERCIAL BREAK.] In just a few days, they'll be celebrating the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose life and legacy helped to transform America, to make it a one big tent, more inclusive America. Mr. Block, as we move toward the Dr. King's birthday celebration, John Ashcroft is a controversial figure. Why is this community so threatened by him?
[Block:] Well, you know, as we move toward that day, we're going to have celebrate that day in Missouri with the government offices closed and the proper kinds of celebrations. John Ashcroft signed that law and worked to get that law passed through the legislature. The first Missouri historical site dedicated to an African American was signed into law by John Ashcroft. The American people are going to see what Missourians saw. And John Ashcroft lost that last election, but in a very unusual circumstance. And he'd been elected over and over and over again by the people who saw him work. I think he'll be confirmed rather handily by the people he works with, who've seen him at work every day.
[Jackson:] Congressman Nadler, why are the Dr. King forces, as they were, why do they feel so threatened by Ashcroft?
[Nadler:] I think because over the years, they have watched him not so much on symbolic issues such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior holiday, but on substantive issues, oppose civil rights issues, such as opposing a voluntary school desegregation in plan in St. Louis and on symbolic issues, too for that matter. Accepting an honorary degree from the notoriously bigoted Bob Jones University, praising as I said before "The Southern Partisan," which is a pro-conference magazine. And they have formed a judgment that this is somebody who they will be loathe to see, not just in charge of enforcing the law, but in charge of making judgments about enforcing the law. And those judgments can be affected by your own views, obviously.
[Jackson:] I express my thanks to both of you for being my very special guests this week. I'm coming this week from Orlando, Florida. There is a challenge for us, as a nation, to be sensitive, to be caring, to do justice, to love mercy, but to include all Americans in our judicial decisions, make all feel secure and leave not American behind. We'll see you again next week at 5:30 p.m. Eastern on CNN. That's it this week from BOTH SIDES. Keep hope alive.