The Case Against the Confirmation of John Ashcroft As Attorney General of the United States: Part II

During his eight years as Governor, John Ashcroft vetoed many pieces of legislation. That, in and of itself, is not necessarily extraordinary. However, Ashcroft used his veto to balance the state budget or otherwise reject legislation in a way that increased the burden on those least able to bear it. He did this to such an extent that it earned him a stinging rebuke when he left office:

Too often, people on the lower rungs of society—the poor, the mentally disabled, the handicapped—were short-changed when the governor made spending cuts to balance the budget as the constitution requires. For reasons that remain a mystery, Mr. Ashcroft always seemed unaware of their needs and their pleas.

"As Governor Ashcroft Leaves," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 10, 1993. If Ashcroft were confirmed as Attorney General, he would have significant responsibility for ensuring that all Americans have equal access to justice and the courts that provide for it. He would also oversee enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as enforcement of the laws that prohibit fraud and abuse in federal programs that protect the poor. The Department of Justice also administers several grant programs dealing with issues such as domestic violence, children exposed to violence and other victims of crime. In most cases involving the federal government, Ashcroft’s Department of Justice would be the lead lawyer for the United States. As such, his decisions about whether or not to pursue those cases would help shape policy on many legal matters, including many of those most important to the poor and to families. All of this makes relevant Ashcroft’s past record on hearing the "pleas" of the poor, the abused and the disenfranchised. In many respects, that record is deeply troubling.