President-elect George W. Bush's cabinet nominees now await confirmation. Although some are qualified public servants, several others should receive close scrutiny by the Senate, and two should be rejected outright.

The proposed Cabinet contains several luminaries. Gen. Colin L. Powell as Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, and Paul O'Neill as Treasury Secretary--all under the watchful eye of Vice President Dick Cheney--should serve the nation well, bringing years of experience in federal administration. Condoleezza Rice also seems a promising candidate for national security advisor.

Other selections, however, present more difficulties. We worry that the "voluntary compliance" philosophy espoused by Interior Secretary appointee Gale A. Norton may weaken environmental protections; her confirmation hearings should clarify these views. The choice of former Michigan Sen. Spencer Abraham for Energy Secretary is also questionable, considering that Abraham introduced legislation in 1999 to abolish the department; we wonder whether his views on the importance of the Energy Department's work have changed over the past months. Furthermore, we question whether Houston superintendent Rod Paige has the experience to run a Cabinet-level department, and we are amused by the choice of the governor of New Jersey as director of the Environmental Protection Agency.

In addition, two of Bush's picks appear manifestly inappropriate for their posts. Yesterday brought news that Linda Chavez, Bush's choice for Labor Secretary, had an illegal immigrant living in her home who performed odd chores and received "spending money." Bush should withdraw Chavez from consideration.

Former Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft, Bush's pick for Attorney General, should encounter the greatest opposition. Although Ashcroft's former colleagues may be loath to vote against him, we feel that he is disqualified by his actions to block the appointment of Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie L. White to the federal bench. Ashcroft repeatedly misrepresented White's record and engaged in a despicable slander campaign to improve his political position before a tight re-election race against the late Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan, a race Ashcroft ultimately lost.

Knowing that support for the death penalty would be an issue in the race, Ashcroft portrayed White, a talented and well-respected jurist, as a pro-criminal activist intent on undermining the capital punishment system. This occurred despite White's endorsement by the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police, despite White's votes to uphold most death sentences that came before his court, despite the decisions by Ashcroft appointees to join White in many of his decisions reversing a death sentence, and despite Ashcroft's complete lack of interest in White's death-penalty views during the confirmation hearing.

We are further concerned that Ashcroft would use his position as Attorney General in ways consistent with his far-right political views. Some have accused Ashcroft of bias for his opposition to White, who is black; although there is no reason to accuse Ashcroft of racism, Ashcroft's political career in Missouri has been characterized by his vocal opposition to desegregation and other civil-rights measures.

Given that Ashcroft has firmly opposed affirmative action, has accepted an honorary degree from Bob Jones University and has written admiringly of the Confederate cause, would he function effectively as the enforcer of the nation's civil rights laws? Given that Ashcroft as Missouri attorney general used his office to file a harassing lawsuit against the National Organization of Women, would he use his new office to promote equality? Given that he has expressed little support for antitrust efforts such as the Microsoft case and that his legislative record has earned near-zero ratings from environmental groups, would he adequately defend consumers and the environment? Given that Ashcroft actively supports prayer in schools and the federal funding of religious organizations, would he maintain an adequate barrier between church and state?