But that’s the wrong question, at least partly because the answer is unknowable. The same two minor incidents keep coming up in the discussion: that he made a joke about the KKK and that he called a black lawyer “boy.”
The real question is, “What does his record say about his political ideology in ways that are clear?” That question has some real answers, as detailed in the two articles below. You will notice, by the way, that National Review has some very pro-Sessions articles on its website. There’s room for diversity of opinion in true conservatism!
The Sessions racism debate fits into the came category, to my mind, as the one over whether or not Trump’s boasting about adultery disqualified him from pursuing his candidacy. Trump’s immorality was only the icing on the cake of his utter disqualification to be President; he would have been unfit had his personal life been as pure as the driven snow. (Using the word “only” in no way excuses his behavior, just to be clear.) Sessions’ calling a black lawyer “boy,” if true, doesn’t ultimately show whether or not he is qualified to be the nation’s attorney. His ideological principles on law in general should be examined. As it stands now, that examination is in woefully short supply.
Sessions will probably make it through the confirmation process. We will hope that his past record is no promise of future policy, but that hope is always faint.
“Conservative Should ThinkTwice Before Supporting Jeff Sessions”
“The Very Bad Reason Jeff Sessions is ‘Very Unhappy'”