Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Senate confirms Loretta Lynch as new attorney general

Senate confirms Loretta Lynch as new attorney general

It’s official

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/loretta-lynch-tapped-replace-eric-holder-attorney-general-n244266

By a vote of 56–43, the Senate confirmed Loretta Lynch as Eric Holder’s replacement today. Lynch will be the first African-American woman to serve as attorney general.

Legal Insurrection has vocally opposed the confirmation of Loretta Lynch, and painfully so, seeing as the Attorney General to-be was a law school classmate of Professor Jacobson’s.

Our objections, like the objections of many, revolve around Lynch’s views on prosecutorial discretion and President Obama’s executive immigration overreach.

The reader may recall Lynch’s nomination hearings. During these hearings, Lynch made no indication she would handle President Obama’s executive immigration overreach in a manner that differed from Eric Holder.

Ten Republicans voted to confirm Loretta Lynch. They are, in no particular order:

Kelly Ayotte
Mark Kirk
Susan Collins
Mitch McConnell
Orrin Hatch
Rob Portman
Lindsey Graham
Jeff Flake
Thad Cochran
Ron Johnson

Ted Cruz did not vote at all.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Another in a long series of catastrophic events for the rule of law in the U.S.

There is simply no excuse for this. She will be WORSE than Holder, who was wounded and had made himself a hiss and by-word.

JimMtnViewCaUSA | April 23, 2015 at 3:40 pm

As someone voiced on another blog: Vote Repub. There’s always another hill to fight on.

I am not a lawyer and have not had the specialized education required to be one, so it is difficult for me to form an opinion about her qualifications. Is this woman a competent attorney but one that some people disagree with politically or is she basically an affirmative action appointment who should never have been admitted to law school?

Are any of the lawyers on this site familiar with her work as an attorney? If so, is she any good?

I can live with an appointment that I disagree with politically but it is hard to accept an appointment that is both political and incompetent based on her race and gender.

Are we becoming Sierra Leon without the charm?

    Ragspierre in reply to Anchovy. | April 23, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    I’ll venture an answer here, with the caveat that I am no authority on Ms. Lynch or her legal career.

    The word “qualified” has several meanings in this context. Is she “qualified” in terms of the specifications for the office? Yep. Just like Barracula was “qualified” to be President under the Constitution.

    Was she “qualified” as an attorney? Well, there are about a million ways to “practice” law. Some people work for WestLaw or Lexis-Nexis all their careers, and never do anything but write nutshells of case-law. I think it’s fair to say that most law school grads never practice trial law.

    Here, Ms. Lynch was a Federal prosecutor in a BLUE state. I have no information to indicate that she was anything BUT a successful prosecutor, BUT we DO have evidence she made some very dubious calls during her tenure.

    Are all TRIAL attorneys “qualified” to be Attorney General. I would say definitely not. I am not, for instance. I have no background in criminal law, except what little I was provided in law school. I would NEVER allow my name to be suggested as a nominee for AG.

    What I also know about her is that the law appears to be perfectly mailable to her. She said in no uncertain terms that an illegal alien had a right to work here. This is simply false, and there’s no way to lipstick that pig.

    This doesn’t just SUGGEST she is “unqualified”, I think it provides any objective observer conclusive evidence that she should never be allowed NEAR the office.

    I also think that the recently demonstrated trend in America to hold certain categories of people immune from normal criticism and accountability under the law disqualifies those categories from service in the higher echelons of government. Until we agree they are just people, we cannot afford to put them in positions of very high authority.

    So, in brief, she MAY be “qualified” by some definitions, but she DISQUALIFIED herself as the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. by her own declarations on the public record. That is BOTH a legal and political disqualification.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | April 23, 2015 at 6:04 pm

      Well said Rags, well said.

      Anchovy in reply to Ragspierre. | April 23, 2015 at 6:44 pm

      thanks for the insight. It seems to me the Attorney General is a unique position. We are a nation of laws but there is also a political aspect. If the Attorney General is too far toward the political side, the “nation of laws” balance suffers. If the Attorney General is oblivious to political reality we have an automaton and issues that require judgement that only a human can provide suffer.

      This one, as far as I can see, is far too political for this office.

      amwick in reply to Ragspierre. | April 24, 2015 at 8:43 am

      Thank you Mr. Pierre, but if this is another train wreck, the next president can appoint someone else, right? Many other AG’s only stayed a year or two. I suppose though, that is plenty of time to do some damage.

So Thad Cochran paid back the GOPe for all those dirty tricks that got him elected. Sweet…

riverlife_callie | April 23, 2015 at 4:18 pm

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

OH, snap!!

Well if you thought Eric Holder was a treat, then you ain’t seen nothing yet.

I do appreciate the list of 10 republicans that need to be primaried, at least that is helpful.

    gasper in reply to Gremlin1974. | April 23, 2015 at 7:41 pm

    You know there are others who would have stepped up if they had to. Richard Burr (NC) is one who comes to mind. There are more I am sure. They are permitted to vote correctly to appease their constituency. Need to pay attention to not only how they vote, but when they vote.

Out with the old, in with the old…

While we’re on the subject of RINO traitors like McConnell, I haven’t heard mush about getting rid of Obamacare lately. Wasn’t that a major reason for voting in republicans – to give them the majority?

While we’re on the subject of RINO traitors like McConnell, I haven’t heard much about getting rid of Obamacare lately. Wasn’t that a major reason for voting in republicans – to give them the majority?

If anyone thought there tolerating a corrupt, backstabbing ass-licker John Boehner as Squeaker of the House, their horrorshow will continue with McTurtle as head of the Senate. The like of Harry Reid could beat the tar out of this weak, talentless boob, even with one eye tied behind his back.

Another sad day created by republicans. Tell me again why I should vote for the R no matter what?

I am sorely disappointed in the Republicans for doing this.

The downward spiral will continue for sure; they have ushered in a batch of final nails for this coffin.

Am I the only one who wonders if someone with a wicked (and, of course, racist, sexist, misogynist, anti-feminist, etc. . .) sense of humor put that plant on the mantel?

They just keep hammering more nails into the casket of the Republican Party. They really want to lose in 2016, don’t they!!!????

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend