It is, to say the least, an interesting objection: Opponents of U.S. Attorney General nominee (and Alabama Sen.) Jeff Sessions insist he is disqualified from leading the nation’s law enforcement because … he’s too committed to enforcing laws that conform to the Constitution.
The mortal blow against Mr. Sessions’ nomination is supposed to be the fact that, while attorney general for Alabama, he tried to block state funding for a gathering of the Southeastern Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual College Conference on the University of Alabama campus 20 years ago.
Ignored by those pressing this particular criticism are two items of increasing irrelevance to that simmering minority who oppose law enforcement officials in general: (1) the facts of the case and (2) the motive of the then–attorney general.
The facts: Mr. Sessions did not try to block funding for the conference as a whole, but for a specific session of it, aimed at teaching attendees how to perform homosexual acts. Not only did the taxpayers of Alabama have no obligation to fund such a class, but considering those acts were illegal at that time, no one could reasonably expect the state to actually provide taxpayer money for it. And this simply illumines Mr. Sessions’ motive: As attorney general, he took a solemn oath to do all he could to enforce the laws.
That it could really be that clear and simple eludes so many in our country today. And those it doesn’t elude, it irritates. The law — like all those other antiquated notions of marriage and family, honor and duty, tradition, heritage, God and faith—is not taken seriously. Just like the idea that certain rights, such as freedom of religion and conscience, are inalienable, they are all anachronisms — the last refuge of the sentimental and small-minded — eminently expendable in the face of whatever sacrifices the current idols of political correctness demand, such as imposing jail sentences on filmmakers who decline to create images that repel their soul.
Such freewheeling contempt, as we have seen, makes it so easy to avoid a more thoughtful appraisal of someone like Mr. Sessions. Despite the fact that I have not agreed with every position he has taken on public issues, one thing to me is clear: He has led a career that reflects an intimate understanding of the profound complexities of the law as the place where changing culture and deep tradition meet … where one’s personal convictions sometimes collide with the evolving ethos or with one’s duty to a community larger than oneself or to a higher law.
Mr. Sessions, for instance, opposed the blanket codification of all attacks on persons who may identify as LGBT as federal hate crimes and voted for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman (a position once supported by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama), so he obviously “hates gays,” right? Only, he also voted to increase federal funding for AIDS treatment in oft-neglected rural areas — hardly the act of a cold-hearted bigot.
Accusations of racism have thundered across airwaves and editorial pages since his nomination was announced. But what kind of racist presses to rectify the enormous disparity in penalties for powdered cocaine users vs. those abusing crack cocaine? Although the effects of both forms of the drug are nearly identical, the punishments for using crack (the form purportedly preferred by people of color) were appreciably higher than the punishment for using powder (the alleged favorite of whites).
Mr. Sessions was concerned that racism might be at the root of that disparity and launched a marathon legislative battle to eliminate it. Because that’s what racists do, when they’re not co-sponsoring efforts to award Rosa Parks the Congressional Gold Medal. (Yes, Mr. Sessions did that, too.)
His record is that of a man who didn’t offer a knee-jerk response to the political winds of the moment. He is a Southern politician, a Republican, and a traditional conservative who at one point or another has confounded the expectation of most people in each of those groups because he understands that people are human, that they have an inherent dignity, that the law is complex, and that a law enforcement officer’s first duty is to uphold the valid laws of their jurisdiction.
Not everyone likes that — because not everyone appreciates the fact that the security of all our most cherished freedoms hinges on a very delicate, crucial balance of powers: on the willingness of lawmakers to create wise statutes; of judges to weigh that wisdom in the context of thoughtful precedent, constitutional originalism and natural law; and of law enforcement officials to look beyond their own personal and political preferences to uphold the law as written.
As an assistant U.S. attorney and chief of the Criminal Section in a neighboring state during segments of Mr. Sessions’ service as a U.S. attorney (which took place during a rare three presidential terms), I saw him earn his reputation as a person who enforced the law with fairness, honor and compassion. Using such standards of review, he is an outstanding choice for U.S. attorney general who will surprise his most outspoken critics with his concern for their rights and for constitutional order.
Alan Sears is president and CEO of the Alliance Defending Freedom. He served in the Department of Justice and Department of the Interior during the Reagan administration. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
