Feingold's Key Vote
Editorial


When it comes to the confirmation of Cabinet members, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., casts the most critical vote.

That is why the fact that he joined fellow Judiciary Committee members to oppose the nomination of White House counsel Alberto Gonzales as attorney general should be seen by the rest of the Senate, and the nation, as an indication that Gonzales cannot be allowed to take charge of the Department of Justice.

Why is Feingold's vote so significant? For the simple reason that no other senator brings to Cabinet confirmation debates Feingold's record of nonpartisanship.

Holding firmly over the years to the standard that a president has a right to pick his team, Feingold has steered clear of the partisan and ideological battles that often arise with regard to nominees for Cabinet posts. This has caused him no small measure of political discomfort, as when he voted in 2001 to confirm John Ashcroft as attorney general, despite the fact that most of Feingold's progressive allies in and out of Congress were making the case against the Missourian.

"My votes may not have always pleased my political supporters, or my party's leadership," he explains. "But in carrying out my part in the constitutional scheme, as one who is asked to advise on and consent to a president's nominations, I am guided by my conscience and by the history and practices of the United States Senate. Rejecting a Cabinet nominee is a very rare event. The decision to do so must never be taken lightly."

Thus, when Feingold voted Wednesday against the Gonzales nomination, it could not be read as a partisan gesture.

It was a damning indictment.

"I cannot support his nomination," the senator explained. "Not because he is too conservative, or because I disagree with a specific policy position he has taken, but because I am not convinced that he possesses the abiding respect for the rule of law that our country needs in these difficult times in its attorney general."

That is a damning indictment.

Even more damning was Feingold's explanation of his concerns.

"Judge Gonzales' appearance before the committee was deeply disappointing. When given the opportunity under oath to show that he would be adequately committed to the rule of law as our nation's chief law enforcement officer, he failed to do so. He indicated that the infamous OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) torture memo is no longer operative, but that he does not disagree with the conclusions expressed in it. He reiterated erroneous interpretations of the effect that applying the Geneva Conventions to the war on Afghanistan would have on the treatment of members of al-Qaida captured in combat. Most disturbingly, he refused time after time to repudiate the most far-reaching and significant conclusion of the OLC memo - that the president has the authority as commander in chief to immunize those acting at his direction from the application of U.S. law."

"This failure," Feingold added, "goes directly to the question of his commitment to the rule of law. Under our system of government, the attorney general of the United States may be called upon to investigate and even prosecute the president. We cannot have a person heading the United States Department of Justice who believes that the president is above the law."

Before the Gonzales nomination is considered by the full Senate, wavering Democrats and Republicans who are generally inclined to back President Bush should reflect on Feingold's concerns. If Alberto Gonzales failed to pass the Feingold test, then, surely, he should not be confirmed as attorney general.

I like Russ.

--PunkDavid

I too like Russ.