STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
OPPOSING THE NOMINATION OF JOHN ASHCROFT TO BE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
JANUARY 24, 2001

I truly believe that a President is entitled to his, or her, cabinet. I am aware that virtually all of President Clinton's cabinet was approved by voice vote, with one exception, which was a roll call vote, and that nominee was overwhelmingly approved.

However, the background record of this nominee is not mainstream on the key issues. I know he is strong and tough on law and order issues. However, his views on certain issues – civil rights and desegregation, a woman's right to choose and guns – make him an enormously divisive and polarizing figure.

This record can best be characterized as ultra-right wing. That is not where most of the people in this nation are.

Senator Ashcroft's commitment to enforce the law in view of the extremeness of his record, as well as, on occasion, the harshness of his rhetoric, makes it difficult to believe that he can, in fact, fairly and aggressively enforce laws he deeply believes are wrong.

When Senator John Ashcroft opposed Bill Lann Lee's nomination to head the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, he argued that Lee was "an advocate who is willing to pursue an objective and to carry it with the kind of intensity that belongs to advocacy, but not with the kind of balance that belongs to administration ... his pursuit of specific objectives that are important to him limit his capacity to have the balanced view of making the judgments that will be necessary for the person who runs [the Civil Rights] Division."

If the Senator's own standard is applied to this nomination, he would not be confirmed.

Last week, this Committee held four days of hearings into the nomination of Senator Ashcroft. During that time, we witnessed a man who had undergone a major transformation on many key issues of importance to the people of my State and the nation. The question that each Senator must now ask, is whether that transformation is plausible after more than 25 years of advocating the other side.

On a woman's right to choose, for example, the new John Ashcroft would have us believe that he fully accepts Roe v. Wade as the law of the land, and he will do nothing to try to overturn it. He would fully fund task forces to protect women as they enter abortion clinics, and stated firmly that "no woman should fear being threatened or coerced in seeking constitutionally protected health services."

Contrast that with the John Ashcroft of the past 25 years, who has long argued that there is no constitutional right to abortion at all, that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, and in 1998 wrote that "If I had the opportunity to pass but a single law, I would...ban every abortion except those medically necessary to save the life of the mother." This John Ashcroft supported a constitutional amendment to ban virtually all abortions, even in the cases of rape and incest - an amendment that would also likely ban some of the most common forms of birth control, including the pill and the IUD.

The John Ashcroft of 25 years once stated, "Battles (for the unborn) are being waged in courtrooms and state legislatures all over the country. We need every arm, every shoulder, and every hand we can find. I urge you to enlist yourself in that fight." The new John Ashcroft claims to have laid down his arms entirely.

On gun control, the new John Ashcroft says he supports background checks at gun shows, says that he voted to deny the right to bear arms to domestic violence offenders, and says he would support re- authorizing the assault weapons ban when it expires in 2004, although he has called it "wrong-headed."

The old John Ashcroft, on the other hand, voted against mandatory background checks at gun shows, trigger locks on guns sold, and a ban on large capacity ammunition magazines. He supported a concealed weapons law that would allow the people of Missouri to carry a concealed firearm into a grocery store, a church, or on school grounds or on a school bus, superceding the Federal Gun Free Schools Act. He was, and still may be, an active member of the National Rifle Association.

On civil rights, the old John Ashcroft strenuously fought a desegregation plan in Missouri. In fact, the judge in the case stated that Attorney General Ashcroft, "as a matter of deliberate policy, decided to defy the authority of this court."

The old John Ashcroft spoke at Bob Jones University, that to this day remains highly questionable for its religious and racial bias; at the hearing he demurred when Senator Biden urged him to return the honorary degree and did not rule out returning to the college in the future.

And the old John Ashcroft, in stating his reasons for voting against James Hormel as Ambassador for Luxemburg, stated that Hormel had "actively supported the gay lifestyle," and that a person's sexual conduct is "within what could be considered and what is eligible for consideration" for ambassadorial nominees.

Yet the new John Ashcroft promises never to discriminate against gays or lesbians for employment and said the reason for voting against Ambassador Hormel was because he knew him personally. Mr. Hormel called to tell me that he not only does not know Mr. Ashcroft, but that the Senator had refused to meet with him prior to his confirmation.

For over a quarter-century of public life, John Ashcroft has established a record of right-wing conservatism, and of views far to the right of the average American, and even of many in his own party. Senator Ashcroft has spent a career fighting against a woman's right to choose. He obstructed the nominations of several women and minority candidates to the federal bench.

Senator Ashcroft said just two short years ago that `There are voices in the Republican Party today who preach pragmatism, who champion conciliation, who counsel compromise. I stand here today to reject those deceptions. If ever there was a time to unfurl the banner of unabashed conservatism, it is now."

In 1997, Senator Ashcroft remarked that "People's lives and fortunes [have] been relinquished to renegade judges – a robed, contemptuous intellectual elite." He continued that "Judicial despotism. . .stands like a behemoth over this great land."

In a speech entitled "Courting Disaster: Judicial Despotism in the Age of Russell Clark," Senator Ashcroft reveals deep and antagonistic feelings toward the courts of our country with this sentence:

"Can it be said that the `people govern?' Can it still be said that citizens control that which matters most? Or have people's lives and fortunes been relinquished to renegade judges – a robed contemptuous, intellectual elite that has turned the courts into `nurseries of vice and the bane of liberty?'"

And in the case of Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White's nomination to the federal bench, Senator Ashcroft was responsible for a dark day in the Senate. When a home-state Senator objects to a nominee, it is very unlikely that the nomination will go forward. But instead of quietly objecting early on and allowing White to withdraw his nomination with dignity if he so wished, John Ashcroft waited until the nominee reached the floor of the Senate - after waiting for two full years – to derail the nomination and humiliate the nominee by stating, "We do not need judges with a tremendous bent toward criminal activity."

Whatever Senator Ashcroft's problem with Ronnie White, there was no need to destroy White's reputation on the floor of the Senate, with no warning and no chance for Judge White to either defend himself or withdraw. This one act has become a stumbling block to my support, which I have not been able to get around. It says to me that it was done for political purposes.

Taken as a whole, Senator Ashcroft's positions and statements, in my view, do not unite, but rather divide. They send strong signals to the dispossessed, the racial minorities of our country, and particularly to all women who have fought long and hard for reproductive freedom that this Attorney General will not be supportive of laws for which they fought, no matter what he has said in the past weeks.

How can our citizens feel that this man will stand up for them when their civil rights are violated? How can the left out, the rape victim who needs an abortion have faith that this man would enforce their rights?

In the end, every Senator must live with his or her own vote, and for this Senator, that vote will be "no."

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), January 24, 2001

Answers

Cherri all this proves is that she is a commie cunt just like you.

-- Manny (No@dip.com), January 24, 2001.

He was, and still may be, an active member of the National Rifle Association.

Yeah, there's a great thing to hold against him, belonging to an organization dedicated to uphold the 2nd amendment to the Constitution just like millions of other Americans.

Feinstein is the biggest hypocrite on firearms in America. This is the same woman who used her influence to get a concealed carry permit in S.F., and when called on it, publically *turned in* her handgun -- without mentioning that she kept another in her purse, as well as keeping her permit.

How can our citizens feel that this man will stand up for them when their civil rights are violated?

Let's change that a bit:

How can our citizens feel that SENATOR FEINSTEIN will stand up for them when their civil rights are violated?

They can't, because she won't. One thing's for sure, Ashcroft can't be worse than Feinstein, but who knows, if given a chance to prove himself history may be able to prove him as bad. But probably, it'll show him better.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 24, 2001.

ROTFLMAO

rollin' on the floor...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.

>>This record can best be characterized as ultra-right wing. That is not where most of the people in this nation are.

If at the same time DiFi is not where most of the people in this nation are, what sort of ultra does this make her? Sauce for the goose, Miss Lady.

-- Scarecrow (Somewhere@over.rainbow), January 24, 2001.

LET'S SEE-GAY'S IN MILITARY-CONVENIENT ABORTIONS-SEXUAL-PERVERSION FALSE GODS-EVIL CALLED GOOD-SATAN-WORSHIP-PRIDE-IMMORALITY AT ALL TIME HIGH-JESUS MOCKED-APOSTATE CHURCH. YES THE CUP IS FULL-------REAPING & SOWING-TIME!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), January 24, 2001.

The massive minority community in California elected DIANNE FEINSTEIN. There is a joke about her scheduling a ‘thank you’ rally for her supporters but nobody showed up….they had all died over ten years ago.

-- American (with@high.standards), January 24, 2001.

Cherri,

I hope that you never come to a place in your life where you wish that you had a firearm for self defense, but if you choose to live your life as a potential victim, that is your right.

When you post the ranting of Feinstein, the forum assumes that you agree with her claptrap. Please tell us why you are not content to just live your life as a potential victim; please tell us why you believe that it is necessary to try and make the rest of us live as potential victims, as well?

Is it because misery loves company?

Or is it because you are an elitist, socialist pig like Feinstein, who believes that only the unwashed masses should not be able to protect themselves?

Whatever the reason, please enlighten us.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 24, 2001.

J:

"I hope that you never come to a place in your life where you wish that you had a firearm for self defense..."

I grew up in the northern part of a northern state in our union - I learned how to deerhunt from my older brother and father. I can probably take you out by putting some lead through your left eyeball at 200 meters (220 yards, about, hick.)

I own a 30-30, a 30.06, and a little old .22 my Grandpa taught me to shoot with.

Does this give me some "threat" power? No, and in fact if I use these facts it makes me a loser. Kinda like, well, how you appear to be. Let's not threaten our fellow forum participants, OK?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 25, 2001.

Yes, a woman should have the right to choose her own gun.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), January 25, 2001.

Awww, c'mon Bemused, J is not threatening anyone.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 25, 2001.

He probably isn't. Sorry, J, if that's not you're intention. I must be just sportin' for a fight.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 25, 2001.

Bemused,

You "must just be sportin' for a fight", as you put it, because I am not sure how you could otherwise interpret what I had posted as a threat to Cherri.

As far as appearing to look like a loser, well, it would be impolite for me to point that out, now wouldn't it?

Finally, the period goes outside the right parenthesis, not inside it.

Now, what was it that you were saying about, "hick"?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 25, 2001.

Umm... I'm pretty sure the period goes inside the parenthesis. But I could be wrong. Do we have an English authority, or at least an "Editor" among us?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 25, 2001.

"J" ?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 25, 2001.

Re - the period and the parenthesis (wasn't that the title of a Oscar Wilde play):

I believe that in this case Bemused made an error. As the parentheses came at the end of a sentence the period should have been put outside the right parenthesis. (However, if the whole sentence had been in parentheses then the period should be put inside the right parenthesis.)

But what do I know...I'm a bean counter.

JC

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 25, 2001.

Bemused,

From Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition:

-- When a word, phrase, or clause within parentheses is part of a sentence, a comma, semicolon, or period does not go before the closing parenthesis (bold emphasis mine).

So as to hopefully put an end to any potential animosity between us, I was in no way trying to convey any manner of threat to Cherri. Since threatening Cherri was in no way my intention, I accept your earlier apology.



Lars,

Thank you for your input on my behalf. It is appreciated.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 25, 2001.

Johnny Canuck,

Though a "bean counter" you may be, your knowledge of the rules of punctuation is keen.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 25, 2001.

Huh. I thought I was correct on that "." usage.

OK, I'm impressed with your grammer. I'll listen to the rest of your (sh - jewish)piel.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 25, 2001.

Back to the topic, for a moment. Cherri believes that Ashcroft should not become a member of the cabinet because of his views on abortion. Poor reason. When did personal views come into play? I would be horrified if I didn't get a job because I disagreed with the personal views of my boss. Wouldn't that be grounds for a legal case against the employer? I don't agree with Ashcrofts views but guess what Cherri, that doesn't mean he's not qualified for the job. He has a ton of experience, more than brother Kennedy when he joined the cabinet. Kennedy never even tried a case. How could anyone look at his record when he had none? Cherri, you need to take off those glasses for they certainly narrow your view in life.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 25, 2001.

When did personal views come into play? I would be horrified if I didn't get a job because I disagreed with the personal views of my boss. Wouldn't that be grounds for a legal case against the employer?

You're kidding, right? You don't actually believe this is true, do you?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 25, 2001.

Bemused,

Grammar.

: )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 25, 2001.

Doh!

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 25, 2001.

OK, nitpickers, feel free to twist this factoid into something racist. Thing is, I like trivia, and I find this trivia interesting---

Name the one state with two female Jewish senators:

California--Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein

name the one state with two male Jewish senators:

Wisconsin--Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold

All are Democrats but Feingold is a maverick in true WI tradition and Kohl is one of the 500 richest persons in America.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 25, 2001.

Tar, do you ask your employees where they stand on abortion rights during the interview process? Do you not hire folks based on their affliation with the NRA? You'd find some opposition if you do.

Lars, hmmmmm

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 25, 2001.

Lars,

I don't think that it is racist for you to point out those facts.

While I don't know those other senators' views on firearm ownership, I do know that Feinstein has tried at every turn to eliminate our Second Amendment rights. With the history of oppression that the Jewish people have undergone throughout history, and the current state of affairs in Israel, I think that Ms. Feinstein's position shows that she is incredibly ignorant of the struggles that her own people have endured, both historically at the hands of their own government, and currently, due to the actions of those governments around them.

Of course, she may not be ignorant of these struggles at all. She may, instead, be more concerned about moving up the power ladder of the Democrat Party than she is about the rights of her constituents. Taking this tack, however, has a way of coming back to haunt a person.

Just ask Al Gore.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 25, 2001.

I don't ask potential employees how they feel about abortion because it's not pertinent to the job. I do ask them how they feel about employment laws, the EEOC, and the whole concept of human resources in general because our software and services revolve around these areas. I've had plenty of candidates who were stupid enough to tell me that HR departments aren't much more than a home for bureaucrats who couldn't break into the public arena. I didn't hire those people. If they think our customer base is extraneous, and they're dumb enough to say it, they will not make good employees.

Since Ashcroft will be expected to enforce all laws, not just ones he agrees with, his viewpoints are vital to his potential job performance. And I think Ashcroft said it best when he said, "an advocate who is willing to pursue an objective and to carry it with the kind of intensity that belongs to advocacy, but not with the kind of balance that belongs to administration ... his pursuit of specific objectives that are important to him limit his capacity to have the balanced view of making the judgments that will be necessary for the person who runs Division."

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 25, 2001.

Maria, You say "Cherri believes that Ashcroft should not become a member of the cabinet because of his views on abortion."

You assume a lot don't you? I have never once publicly expresses my views on abortion.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), January 25, 2001.

Tar, OK then I wasn't far off with my first statement. You're kidding, right? You don't actually believe this is true, do you?

Since Ashcroft will be expected to enforce all laws, not just ones he agrees with, his viewpoints are vital to his potential job performance. Has he ever not enforce laws? (Lets take Janet. Has she even not enforce laws? Oh yeah, that's right there's an investigation right now into that.) Since Ashcroft hasn't been charged with not doing his job, or dereliction of duty, then his views don't matter. You can't assume just because he had been vocal, (that's what senators do, they become very vocal; that's how they get elected; that's how govs get elected) he won't enforce the laws. I advocate eliminating all drug control laws. So what? Does that mean I'm not going to obey the laws on drug control? Of course, not. The dems are reaching pretty far here and IMO they need to move on.

Cherri, I assume and I read. I've read your posts on Ashcroft and they ultimately turn to abortion. Please note that I said *his* views on abortion and not *your* views.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 25, 2001.

Cherri believes that Ashcroft should not become a member of the cabinet because of his views on abortion.

Again, you state that I believe he should not become a member of the cabinet because of his views on abortion. You are assuming I am opposed to him because I do not agree with his stand on abortion, again I say you assume a lot.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), January 25, 2001.

My suspicion is that Dem pols are afraid of Ashcroft because he won't be intimidated away from exposing some Clinton era corruption. Ideological rationalizations are just a pretense to oppose a tenacious AG.

I think it's interesting that Hillary has been nearly silent on Ashcroft.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 26, 2001.

Lars, Yea, I've noticed that too. I think Hillary is just playing politics right now. The dems have let Kennedy lead the march against Ashcroft and again that's policital talk for "Don't worry minorities, we're behind you"

Cherri, since you are pursueing this, then please tell why do you dislike Ashcroft (or why do you like him) and what is your view on abortion. The suspense is killing me.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 26, 2001.