Leahy Statement on Ashcroft Unresponsiveness

Comment Of Sen. Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, On Sen. Ashcroft's Responses To The Committee's Written Questions Fri., Jan. 26, 2001

"The answers are surprisingly unresponsive and often are inconsistent with the hearing record and with Sen. Ashcroft's own record. They are 'answers' in the sense that there is text after the question marks, but they are not answers to the point of being responsive.

"The committee always requires nominees to reply to its written questions as part of the confirmation process. In this case written questions are especially important because senators had fewer rounds of questions than usual and because the nominee was not called back at the end of the hearings, as we often do. Of course any nominee can choose how to respond to the committee's questions. This nominee and his advisers have decided to essentially ignore the committee's request for answers on several significant subjects important to many senators. That is Sen. Ashcroft's choice. The refusal to provide substantive answers is another factor that senators will have to take into account in deciding how they will vote. I will say that if President Clinton or a Clinton nominee had provided these answers, some Republicans would be calling for impeachment or a subpoena."

Sen. Leahy released the following examples of unresponsive or inconsistent answers in Sen. Ashcroft's responses:

UNRESPONSIVE ANSWERS

In his written responses, Sen. Ashcroft refused to:

-- take a position on whether Southern Partisan is racist;

-- explain what he meant when he said he opposed James Hormel based on the "totality of the circumstances";

-- express regret about calling Jim Brady the "leading enemy" of responsible gun owners;

-- explain his basis for saying the Supreme Court had engaged in "religious oppression";

-- explain why employees should not be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation;

-- express his view as to whether states should be able to restrict the teaching of evolution;

-- explain what he meant when he told Southern Partisan he had "stopped judges."

THE HORMEL NOMINATION

Sen. Ashcroft was asked to specify the factors that led to his opposition to James Hormel, but he continues to refuse to do so, citing again "the totality of Mr. Hormel's record" as the basis for his opposition. Moreover, while Sen. Ashcroft denied in his oral testimony that he opposed Mr. Hormel because he was gay (1/17/01 Tr., at p. 92), he curiously notes in his written responses that Luxembourg, to which Mr. Hormel was to be posted, was the "the most Roman Catholic country in all of Europe."

NOMINATION HOLDS

Sen. Ashcroft refused to acknowledge in his written responses even a single hold on any presidential nominee, even though, for instance, he held a news conference on October 13, 1997, in which he publicly admitted to holding up the judicial confirmation of Margaret Morrow. See L.A. Daily Journal, October 15, 1997.

JUDGE RONNIE WHITE

Sen. Ashcroft's answer that reproductive rights played no part in his opposition to Judge White's nomination is flatly contradicted by the questions he asked and the statement he put in the Judiciary Committee markup record on May 21, 1998, in which he referred to Judge White's "manipulation of legislative procedures while he was a member of the Missouri General Assembly."

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Sen. Ashcroft acknowledges in his written response to a question by Sen. Leahy that a Missouri bill known as Senate Bill 339, which criminalized non-therapeutic abortions, might not be constitutional, but he distances himself from this legislation by stating that he had "no specific recollection" and that "it appears from press reports that representatives from my office may have expressed interest in seeing the bill passed out of committee." He also states:

"[w]hile I was governor, it was my policy to refrain from opining on whether I would sign a bill until after a bill actually passed the legislature...". Finally, he states that "this bill did not prevent abortions attributable to rape, incest or a "bona fide, diagnosed health problem." (emphasis in original).

FACTS:

Sen. Ashcroft's failure of recollection about this legislation is difficult to credit. His State of the State Address on January 9, 1990, stated, "within the next week, I will announce my support for concepts that would enhance our capacity to protect unborn children." Shortly thereafter, on January 19, 1990, he issued a statement saying, "Today I am proposing that Missouri ban abortions for birth control, sex selection, and racial discrimination. Missourians reject multiple, birth control abortions... I am grateful for these proposals and I would welcome an opportunity to sign their protections for unborn children and mothers into law as an alternative to the continuation of abortions." These specific reasons for banning abortion were part of Missouri Senate bill 339. Sen. Ashcroft failed to provide the Committee with these speeches as requested, but they are documented in contemporaneous press reports. See St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 10, 1990, and January 20, 1990.

Sen. Ashcroft is wrong when he says only his "representatives ... expressed interest." In addition to the speeches cited above in which he expressly supported the terms of this legislation, when the bill was being debated in the Missouri Senate, Gov. Ashcroft reportedly was personally involved in pressuring a swing vote. "Gov. John Ashcroft had telephoned Singleton to urge his support for a bill barring virtually all abortions" [referring to Senate Bill 339]. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 28, 1991.

Sen. Ashcroft is wrong when he says he refrained from opining about signing the bill. "The governor's proposal would join two bills that would outlaw most abortions in Missouri. Ashcroft said he would sign those measures into law 'as an alternative to the continuation of abortions.'" St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 20, 1990.

Sen. Ashcroft is wrong when he says the bill did "not prevent abortions attributable to rape, incest". The bill itself provides NO such exceptions and, in fact, the bill failed because in the view of the "swing vote" "the proposal went too far... it failed to assure the continued legality of abortions in cases involving rape or incest." St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 28, 1991.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), January 28, 2001

Answers

Come on horse get up. I don't care if your dead just get up!

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 28, 2001.

Aaaww, come on Carlos, you're tired already? We've still got 4 more years of dead horse beating to do, and if you're lucky maybe 8 years!

-- Democrats (bwaahaha@stay.tuned), January 28, 2001.

Which horse would that be, Carlos? The outright lying, or the refusal to give substantial answers?

Oh, and Leahy's statement was covered today in the NYTimes, so the dead horse appears to be your own head.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), January 28, 2001.

Ashcroft even showed up at the inaugerauction and posed for a few photos. Never mind that he's a little behind the times ... the GOP just loves this racist misogynistic anti-Constituationalist homophobic gun-totin' little liar!

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), January 28, 2001.

"Ashcroft -- Unresponsive, Shifty, Unmitigated Liar"

Compared to the Klintons and Janet Reno he looks pretty good. I wonder how many WACO's he would authorize? Hopefully he would restrain Komrade Klinton's Jack-Booted Government Thugs a bit and give us average, honest citizens a breather.

-- Barry Seal (BS@restore.out.rights), January 28, 2001.

Coup2k looks like another disgruntled communist.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), January 28, 2001.

Coup2k--boooring

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), January 28, 2001.

I think Ashcroft should get in.

It would allow one of two things:

#1) Ashcroft shows his true colors and contributes to "W"'s defeat in the next Pres. election.

#2) Ashcroft is not allowed to do anything he wants to do, thus making his redneck "shadow constituents" angry and making him personally an outhouse resident for *both* parties.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 28, 2001.

Coup2k,

I can't help but to get a warm, fuzzy feeling all over every time that I see liberals whining about the recent turn of events. You keep posting your little anti-Bush, anti-Ashcroft, anti- conservative, anti-Republican, whining. The fact is that the Democrats have a minimal chance of stopping Ashcroft's confirmation. Just as the Democrats have a minimal chance of stopping anything upon which the Republicans agree to unite.

Do you like the fact that no more U.S. dollars are going to abortion clinics overseas? We, as conservatives, really don't care whether or not you like it. We are much more concerned with stopping the killing of millions of babies before they ever get to take a breath, than we are about how you whining liberals feel about it.

I can hardly wait for the first Supreme Court judge to retire. How old is Stevens again?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 28, 2001.

I'm a political and fiscal conservative. I believe in lower taxes, smaller government, less regulation, the free market. I think government meddles too much, and spends much too much doing it.

But I must say I am *appalled* that the first thing Bush does is impose his religious idiocy on others. The way to unite us is NOT to make people's lives more miserable around the world. What a senseless, radical (NOT conservative), selfish thing to do. This was one of the single most universally beneficial programs the government was doing. What a terrible loss.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 28, 2001.

Flint,

Beneficial to whom? The big wigs at Planned Parenthood who get a slice of that pie for performing "administrative" duties?

Surely it was not beneficial to any child who was killed in utero.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 28, 2001.

J:

I am not suprised by your response or your lack of knowledge of how the government operates {I have been reading your posts for sometime}. Just follow the numbers. If more than 40 vote against Ashcroft [hell, even 35 will do], you won't see anyone to the right of Stevens appointed to the Supreme Court or in any part of the Federal Court System.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 28, 2001.

Sure, J. It's better to cheer El Shrubo who has just effectively ordered that 92,000 babies and 75,000 women will die.

You're a shining example of "compassionate conservatism."

-- J makes me sick to my stomach (literally@sick.com), January 28, 2001.

Don't worry, J. Your leader isn't really a leader, because he wasn't really elected. He'll get four years, and then the public will get its revenge.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), January 28, 2001.

J, have you noticed that a lot of women don't chime in with these social engineers? Shows who is touch with reality.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), January 28, 2001.

KoFe,

My woman chimes in. She's got a little more education than you, and is much better looking.

Me, myself, I do to. Get yourself a life, little buddy.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 28, 2001.

Hey pal, ask your girlfriend; when she was pregnant; was it a baby?

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), January 28, 2001.

Z,

I am not surprised by your response nor your continuing style of (unfounded) arrogance. I have been reading your posts for some time, and your condescending tone continues, as always, to be quite boorish.

Since you are obviously off kilter, please elucidate on your apparent misbelief that the Senate must confirm an appointee by a 2/3 majority. I, as well as much of the forum I am sure, would like to hear more of your thoughts on this point.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 29, 2001.

J,

When asking another person for guidance, it is wise to begin the request with a either a compliment or a profession of ignorance and a plea. Ignorance is curable, and you would not wish anyone to presume the alternative. Some might jump to just that conclusion when faced with boorishness, for such is too often the plight of those who make short shrift of courtesy.

-- FedUp (Asgood@sAnyoneElses.com), January 29, 2001.

Z,

I saw that you had posted to Boswell's Mad Cow thread recently, so I wanted to take this time to bump this thread back to the top of the new answers page and ask you again to clarify for the forum what you meant when you said,

"Just follow the numbers. If more than 40 vote against Ashcroft [hell, even 35 will do], you won't see anyone to the right of Stevens appointed to the Supreme Court or in any part of the Federal Court System".

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 01, 2001.

Z,

Are you still thinking about your answer?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 01, 2001.