Ashcroft, Justice and discrimination
Published November 01, 2003
They have succeeded in getting Ashcroft, Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., and other legislators to write letters to the Justice Department seeking an investigation of the unusual circumstances under which Sell has been held in federal custody for most of the past three years without trial. . . .
He is also is said to have blocked the ascension of a well qualifed African-American judge, Ronnie White, to a federal judgeship.
Judge White was attacked by Senator Ashcroft because, in 59 capital cases before the Missouri court, he had voted 18 times to reverse the death sentence. In 10 of those 18 the court was unanimously for reversal. Senator Ashcroft hit at cases in which Judge White dissented.
For appraisal of Judge White's record in those cases I rely on Stuart Taylor Jr. of The National Journal, a conservative who is widely respected as a legal analyst. He wrote: "The two dissents most directly assailed by Ashcroft in fact exude moderation and care in dealing with the tension between crime-fighting and civil liberties."
One of the dissents was in a horrifying murder case — the murder, among others, of a sheriff. Mr. Taylor wrote that Judge White's "conclusion was plausible, debatable, highly unpopular (especially among police) and (for that reason) courageous. For John Ashcroft to call it `pro-criminal' was obscene."
In short, a judge who wrote a thoughtful, reasoned dissent in a murder case was told that it disqualified him for a federal judgeship. Think about what that means for our constitutional system.
Judicial independence has been a fundamental feature of the American system for 200 years and more. We rely on judges to enforce the Constitution: to protect our liberties. But a judge who does so in a controversial case is on notice from John Ashcroft that he may be punished. The judge must reject the constitutional claim, however meritorious, or face a malicious smear.
There is a slimy feel to Senator Ashcroft's behavior with Judge White. One of the Republicans who voted against the judge at Senator Ashcroft's urging, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, told Judge White the other day, "The Senate owes you an apology." Commentators have urged Senator Ashcroft to apologize, but he has refused.
The minority attorneys in Ashcroft's Justice Department are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Lawyers of color are disproportionately employed in government because they are less likely to be hired in the private sector. When they face discrimination in their public sector positions, their only remaining choice may be personal or small group practice. However, because of lack of the financial equity many white professionals take for granted, people of color are more likely to be unable to set up their own small businesses. I suspect there is a lot of grinning and bearing it going on at the Justice Department.
Note: This entry originally appeared at Silver Rights.
- Ashcroft, Justice and discrimination
- Published: November 01, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Sci/Tech
- Filed Under: Sci/Tech: Internet
- Writer: Mac Diva
- Mac Diva's BC Writer page
- Mac Diva's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
Thanks, Hal. That information really makes the picture clearer. If someone that high up is doing damage control, a message is sent about leadership alright.
That message has been out there for quite a while - few seem to be listening. I'm not sure what it will take to wake them up.




That same report, half of which was blacked out, was defended by the next #2 in the Justice Department, who was appointed to investigate the CIA leak.
Justice Dept Nominee Pledges Integrity In CIA Leak Probe
WASHINGTON (AP)--President George W. Bush's nominee for the No. 2 post at the Justice Department promised Wednesday the investigation into the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name would be handled with integrity.
"I don't care about politics. I don't care about expediency. I care about doing the right thing," [James B.] Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I would never be involved in something I believed to be fundamentally wrong."
Maybe he just didn't "believe it to be fundamentally wrong" to hide the truths in the report. Think we'll get justice here?