Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Not being Eric Holder is not enough – vote No on Loretta Lynch

Not being Eric Holder is not enough – vote No on Loretta Lynch

At that critical moment when Lynch could have convinced us that she was The One, she blinked.

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:

http://youtu.be/aQxrBgUHAck

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)

http://youtu.be/FbjsvEjXLgo
http://youtu.be/uJTCcG6qGNE

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%.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Let us be honest here. The Boehner/McConnell RINOs WANT this amnesty as badly as Obama and a new AG who will allow it is a godsend for them. Of course they will vote for her. Thank you to Cruz and Sessions for getting the truth out of her.

    GrumpyOne in reply to iambasic. | January 30, 2015 at 11:15 am

    Yes, they are beholden to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and do not have the best interests of the people or country in mind and the RINOs are in lock step which to me is more than shameful.

    If such prevails, can it be assumed that the November elections were a farce?

Hey, all it takes is one Senator with guts to stop this appointment, then we will see how good McConnell’s promise to return to regular order really is.

It is absolutely disgraceful that any lawmaker, whether Republican or Democrat, would vote to confirm as Attorney General a woman who asserts that foreigners living illegally in the United States have the “right” to work here.

Either Lynch does not understand the concept of the rule of law, or she’s not willing to uphold it. Either way, she’s unfit to serve as Attorney General.

Lynch is nothing but another yes-man (or woman, in this case) to rubber stamp Obama’s policies, regardless of their legality.

She will do nothing Obama doesn’t order her to do. She will enforce nothing Obama isn’t interested in having enforced. She will continue Holder’s legacy of giving a gigantic middle finger to the Constitution and the American People so Obama can continue his petty, narcissistic tantrum that the American People DARED to vote against him.

    Radegunda in reply to Olinser. | January 30, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    Ah, but remember that Lord Obama “heard” the large chunk of the electorate that didn’t vote — and they told him by their silence that they’re fully on board with whatever he does.

>>”And it appears that congressional Republicans may do the same.”

“Appears”? Foregone conclusion. This party is shot, debauched, over with.

All of the effort to rise above racial differences, to heal the nation, to look for character over color is now dashed once again against the rocks of wonton racial revenge and retribution. How can we move ahead when even the slights of the past are now reason to incriminate the innocent? I refuse to be chained by false accusations and demands forged today by those that never truly suffered the slaver’s lash, the KKK’s terror and the segregationist’s abuse.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to alaskabob. | January 30, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    We deported Obama’s daddy. Just like taking away Norm Mineta’s baseball bat, we’re all gonna pay for that.

The new GOP-led Congress is less than a month old, yet look what it has “accomplished”. Rubber-stamping Loretta Lynch (so much for stopping Obama’s extreme nominees, which was promised to us during last year’s campaign). Full funding for ObamaCare (passed during the lame duck session). Chickening out on a popular bill ending late-term abortions that has widespread public support. Openly signaling that they will not fight Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty by cutting off funds. An eagerness to raise the Federal gas tax.

Boehner and McConnell are doing something I though impossible: they are making Harry Reid look good by comparison. At least Reid brought matters to a standstill by blocking pretty much everything that came into the Senate. By contrast Boehner & McConnell have the pedal-to-the-metal trying to get Obama’s agenda passed in record time.

In 2016 the GOP should just nominate Hillary Clinton for President and stop pretending to be an opposition political party.

A “wingman” is the pilot in a flight whose job is to provide cover for the wing leader. A more appropriate description of Holder couldn’t be imagined.

As terrible as it is to step back and face just who ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ truly is – and the fact he holds the highest, most powerful office in our nation – it is just as terrible to know the majority of Senators in our Congress have proven to be debased cowards in the face of this skinny, scummy, terrible threat to our freedom.

Where in the world is Carmen San Diego?

Subotai Bahadur | January 29, 2015 at 11:58 pm

Loretta Lynch could have promised to open death camps for political dissidents, Kulaks, and racial enemies [white, of course] and it would not change the vote. We have one or two Senators who still have some loyalty to the Constitution and the American Republic. The rest are loyal only to the one-party State. The confirmation vote will be almost unanimous.

DINORightMarie | January 30, 2015 at 12:47 am

There is NO WAY that she won’t get nominated.

First off, her credentials are impeccable.

But, as well we all know, the Republicans would NEVER vote “no” against a woman, against an African-American woman.

They only care about the “optics” and what the MSM says. At least that is true for a large number of RINOs.

She will be confirmed, and only a handful of Republicans, who will explain and justify their vote, will vote “no.”

I predict 80 yeas, minimum.

Her whole life history is one enormous list of disqualifications for this office.

Why would it ever have been possible to be “convinced” that she would be an acceptable candidate?

Before the hearing ever started, there was an overabundance of evidence precluding any possibility that anything she might say could convince anyone to vote to confirm her.

Oh, and dodging all those questions? That alone deserves a “NO” vote.

The real Lynch.

Plus she’s no fan of whitey.

“I took office last summer, and as I did I am sure that a long line of dead white men rolled over in their graves.

But at the same time, I am sure that just a stone’s throw away from here, in the African burial ground, a long line of people for whom the law was an instrument of oppression, sat up and smiled.”

From a 2000 speech accepting the position as US Attorney for NY’s Eastern District.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to wyntre. | January 30, 2015 at 3:01 pm

    Wow. Just wow. She and holder and obama have been given things on silver platters, and they can’t point to any genuine race issue in their own lives, yet this is what we get.

    Instead of gratitude of when and where they live, nothing but disdain for what brought us to the point where they truly have nothing to gripe about.

j christian adams spelled it all out weeks ago.
she is poison.
so of course she will get confirmed just for diversity reasons.

Eric Holder of racial animus and Loretta Lynch ‘whitey’s’ law. Name evil and do not confirm it.

Thanks, Prof. I get the impression this was a bit difficult for you (perhaps totally wrong).

But your quality shown through again.

It will be interesting to see who votes against her, and who openly supports her.

The Collective thinks they can defraud the middle-class again. But declarations like Lynch’s that illegal invaders have a right to work here are too loopy to pass by working people.

When Lynch said that illegals had the same right to work as citizens and legal immigrants, she told us she did not believe in the rule of law. As long as the law says they do not have that right, then she cannot say they do.

Loretta Lynch should be thanked for appearing, but that here help is not needed.

    Radegunda in reply to RickCaird. | January 30, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    I’d like to ask Lynch which laws I as a citizen am free to break if they impede my aspirations or violate my sense of right and wrong.

    Why foreign nationals should be indulged en masse in their lawbreaking when citizens are held to legal penalties (and told that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”) is a question that no amnesty-proponent has even tried to answer seriously, except with the lame “the system is broken” mantra, or “whatya gonna do, round up millions of people and ship them off in boxcars?”

If the Republican “leadership” in Congress had a spine and if they wanted to actually represent their base, they would not approve a single Obama appointment for the next two years unless Obamacare was dismantled and the president stopped using executive orders and memos to bypass Congress. This administration keeps appointing people who will carry out Obama’s personal agenda (rejected by the electorate in the November election). Congress has the tools if it chooses to use them. Republicans in Congress need new leaders who actually have a spine.

Janet Reno redux

“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”

This is the greatest single indicator of what Lynch will be like as AG. Enforcement of the law as per the Constitution is the rule of law and yes, she “flinched.”

She should not be approved PERIOD!

Karen Sacandy | January 30, 2015 at 3:05 pm

Martin Luther Kind, Jr. must be rolling in HIS grave, as well as Barbara Jordan.

The short version of her response to Cruz’s question is that she sees the AG position as a mini, one-person Supreme Court and worse, as in the Cruz’s example, would apparently not rule out assuming the position of the legislature.

Also, thank you Professor Jacobson for taking the time to watch and comment on these hearings.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend