Amid growing evidence that the Trump administration rushed into a legally- and constitutionally-shaky ban on immigration from seven Middle East and African nations, the U.S. Senate is about to rush to judgment on the President's top legal adviser, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
That would be a mistake. And thankfully, it's one the Senate can still avoid.
With a vote scheduled Tuesday morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sessions' nomination, Chairman Charles Grassley should order a new hearing and a delay in voting so that senators can learn what role Sessions played in drafting the immigration ban and ascertain his views on its legality and constitutionality.
The ban is rightfully drawing questions from Democratic and Republican senators alike, who worry that it imposes an unconstitutional religious test on admission to the U.S. and was drafted and implemented hastily, without full consideration of its legality and likely impact.
Sen. John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, a committee member, have warned that the ban may give terrorist groups a recruiting tool, increasing rather than diminishing the threat of additional attacks in the U.S..
Senators should ask Sessions about that before any vote on his nomination. They also should insist on a commitment from Sessions that the Justice Department under his leadership will honor and vigorously enforce court orders, regardless of whether they support the administration's position. Over the weekend, as judges began issuing orders blocking enforcement of the President's immigration order, the administration at least initially dragged its heels in complying.
In a press release on Sunday, after several courts had issued stays of the President's order, the Department of Homeland Security said it "will continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place--prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety."
Sessions' name has been conspicuously absent from most press reports on the drafting and issuance of the immigration ban, but as the Washington Post reported today, the order is laden with signs of Sessions' influence.
Stephen Miller, a Sessions confidant, is a principal author of many of the administration's executive orders and spent the weekend overseeing the government's implementation of the refugee ban, the Post reported. Meanwhile Rick Dearborn, Sessions' longtime chief of staff in the Senate, is now working as Trump's deputy chief of staff, where he's in charge of turning the new administration's agenda into government policy.
Sessions also is said to be close to Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, and has been described as "the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy" in Trump's administration by Stephen K. Bannon, the President's top political adviser.
All this adds up a compelling case for another, harder look by senators at the Sessions nomination. The case against his confirmation already is substantial. His long record of opposition to strong civil rights and voting rights laws makes it clear that he would not uphold the fair and equal rule of law for every American as Attorney General. Despite that, the deference senators typically give to a colleague has led many to assume he is likely to be confirmed; now, the fast-breaking news surrounding the immigration ban and the outpouring of protests in response should give pause to his supporters, Republican and Democrat alike.
At the least, to borrow a favorite phrase from the President, Sen. Sessions is due some additional vetting.
###