Sessions deserves a fair appraisal
In addition to signing the letter opposing the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions to be attorney general, I imagine that the three Wisconsin law professors who signed the letter have at least one other thing in common: They have never met or worked with Sessions.
After serving 10 years in the Air Force, I spent nine and a half years serving as a defense policy adviser to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). I had the pleasure of working with Sessions, who sat next to my boss on the Armed Services Committee, every week. I always knew him and those who worked for him to be fair, competent and unbiased.
During my tenure as a staffer, shortly after President Barack Obama was elected, I heard Sen. John McCain say something to the effect that “elections have consequences; the president deserves the right to select his own cabinet.” In other words, none of us can expect someone we did not vote for to nominate our preferred candidates. The Senate should scrutinize cabinet nominees, but elections have consequences.
Sessions is a strong conservative. That should come as no surprise. However, at no time did I see he or his staff take positions that were far outside the mainstream of conservative thought. It’s not surprising that law professors on the left would not like Sessions. I suspect that they did not vote for President-elect Donald Trump and wish that someone else was naming the next attorney general. However, the three Wisconsin law professors represent a tiny minority of all law professors in our state, and the 1,100 they joined in their letter of opposition represent less than 5% of all the law professors in the country — a group that itself is well to the left of the country as a whole.
What concerns me is these professors’ implication that Sessions is a bad person. I understand the disappointment that comes with seeing your candidate fail to win election, but that is no excuse for demonizing political opponents.
Sessions is a good man. The professors challenge Sessions’ decision to prosecute voter fraud against a group of African-American activists who came to be known as the “Marion Three” and who were accused of illegal conduct by other African-American activists. And they suggest racial bias. Yet Albert F. Turner Jr., an attorney and elected county commissioner of Perry County, Ala., (where the “Marion Three” were charged) — and the son of one of the defendants — stated that Sessions “is not a racist” and that he “will be fair in his application of the law and the Constitution; as such, I support his nomination to be the next attorney general of the United States.”
Turner’s endorsement should be enough to squelch any rumors of racism or bias.
Sessions fought to bring penalties for crack possession in line with the penalties for powder cocaine — an issue civil rights leaders supported in an attempt to reverse unfair treatment of African-Americans in the legal system. While a U.S. attorney, Sessions prosecuted Bennie Hays, KKK member and son of the Alabama KKK leader, for abducting and killing a black teenager. Sessions insisted on the death penalty. Hays was executed in 1997, and Sessions’ successful prosecution led to a $7 million judgment against the KKK, essentially eliminating their presence in Alabama.
It’s perfectly acceptable for law professors to express their political disagreements with Sessions, although, as McCain noted, it’s not a sufficient reason to oppose his confirmation. It always will be possible for individuals who oppose a nominee to put forth reasons for their opposition. But in this case, the reasons represent basic policy disagreements or, upon closer examination, attempts at character assassination that a full accounting refutes. Sessions deserves to be confirmed.