Prior to the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to succeed Attorney General Eric Holder, there were concerns about the independence of the A.G. nominee. During pre-testimony meetings, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) noted: “I found her responses in the conversation about executive amnesty not just frustrating . . . but sort of unbelievable.”
Loretta Lynch's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed this assessment. Lynch proclaimed: "[T]he Constitution, the bedrock of our system of justice, will be me lodestar." Yet during challenging question from Senate Republicans, Ms. Lynch did not voice legal concerns over President Barack Obama's Executive Action on amnesty. In fact, Lynch told Senator Jeff Sessions that she preferred everyone who is America should be able to work, regardless of their legal status.
The Senate has the Constitutional duty of Advice and Consent. Ms. Lynch's answers demonstrate that she makes no legal distinction of Executive Action on immigration. So if the Senate rubber stamps her nomination, it both validates President Obama's usurpation of the Constitution on immigration and ignores the power of check and balances. Moreover, such an Advice and Consent blank check moots the strategy of using the budgetary process to thwart abuses by the Department of Homeland Security.
If Loretta Lynch is going to be the judicial equivalent of a mini-me, why should we sell ourselves short for an Eric Holder Mini Me.
The Senate ought to reject Loretta Lynch on policy considerations. That will have the effect of Attorney General Eric Holder staying in office until a suitable replacement is found. More likely, the President will make a recess appointment when Holder wants to leave the government. But at least the Senate will not acquiese to what is forthright expressions of lawlessness.
No comments:
Post a Comment