It pains me to come to the conclusion that Loretta Lynch should not be confirmed as our next Attorney General.

As I wrote before, Lynch was a law school classmate. While we were not “friends,” we were acquaintances. I have only good memories of her, and it does not surprise me that she has accomplished so much.

Lynch is not Eric Holder, in so many ways. Holder was the consummate political being, who leaves a history of shattered constitutional and other principles in his wake.  Lynch assured the Judiciary Committee that she could say “No” to a president.

That sequence, and so much of the testimony at the confirmation hearings, was more about Holder than Lynch. And it was devastating.

Jonathan Turley, who supports Lynch, gave another stinging indictment of the Obama-Holder constitutional legacy:

As did Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, who spoke to the Department of Justice’s war on police through racial divisiveness:

Holder leaves behind a tattered and disgraceful legacy that will take a strong new Attorney General to clean up.

Lynch could have been that person to clean up Holder’s mess and put the DOJ back on the non-political path. She has the credentials, including service as a U.S. Attorney. She has led a scandal free career, even if there are some people who disagree with some of her decisions.

By all credible accounts, Loretta Lynch could do the job of Attorney General justice. But she doesn’t step into that potential position in a vacuum.

At that critical moment when Lynch could have convinced us that she could do what Holder never could, put law enforcement above political policy, Lynch blinked.

The issue was Obama’s executive action on immigration which creates a wholesale change in our immigration laws not by legislation, or even the necessities of allocation of prosecutorial resources. The executive action creates a new class of people who effectively are exempt from the immigration laws at least so long as the policies are in effect; it also creates registration and other procedures for work permits that circumvent existing law.

Whether these are good policies or bad policies is irrelevant — Obama needed to go to Congress, and not getting his way is not a constitutional principle.

Obama’s executive immigration action is politics, and political policy. No part of it in reality has to do with better enforcing existing law — it is a way around the legislative power which is delegated to the Congress.

The Obama executive action did not start to better law enforcement, but it is using law enforcement principles such as prosecutorial discretion as cover for the politics.

Yet when Lynch was asked how she would assess Obama’s immigration policies as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, obligated to enforcement of the law, she obfuscated and demurred. Prosecutorial discretion, when applied as Obama and Holder have as cover for politics, knows no boundaries, something Lynch could not bring herself to admit:

The testimony and questioning was painful to watch, particularly when Lynch agreed to elevate illegal immigrants to legal work status as a right, notwithstanding existing law. (Power Line has key transcripts)


Ultimately, Lynch did what Holder would do, mask political policy of the Executive Branch as law enforcement policy of the Department of Justice.

And with that she lost my vote. Or at least my theoretical vote, since I’m not a member of Congress.

It probably was a good enough performance to get her through the process, as most congressional Republicans are loathe to fight over immigration, regardless of what they say.

Loretta Lynch blinked. And it appears that congressional Republicans may do the same.

—————-

You can listen to me discuss the Lynch nomination on The Chris Stigall Show this morning. At that point I was 95% of the way to may decision. Having reviewed more testimony, I’m now at 100%.