BILL LANN LEE, the president's nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights, ought to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

The nomination of Mr. Lee -- rejected more than a year ago by the Senate Judiciary Committee -- has been re-submitted by President Clinton.

For most of the time since Senate Republicans -- led by Judiciary Chairman Orrin G. Hatch -- blocked his nomination, Mr. Lee has held the post on an acting basis. He could probably continue to do so through the remainder of President Clinton's term. But that isn't the point.

Mr. Lee is qualified for the position by virtue of his years as a civil rights attorney, and Mr. Clinton should have the right to put in that position someone who shares his vision of the role of the federal government in helping all Americans achieve full equality under the law.

Likely still in the back of the minds of some critics of the nomination are two bitter battles in the not-so-distant past involving conservative nominees to head the civil rights division.

During the Reagan and Bush adminstrations, the nominations of William Bradford Reynolds and William Lucas faced stiff opposition from Senate Democrats and the civil rights community who felt both men would undermine the civil rights gains of earlier years. Ultimately, Mr. Reynolds was confirmed; Mr. Lucas was not.

The Senate, though, has an added reason this time around to confirm Mr. Lee: He now has a track record as head of the civil rights division. Significantly, he has shown himself not to be the radical that conservative Republicans portrayed him as. In fact, he has acted as he said he would when he pledged to put the law before his personal beliefs on affirmative action or other issues.

What more can his critics want?