Last November, President Obama nominated Loretta Lynch to replace Eric Holder as US Attorney General.
On paper, she seems like a qualified candidate. Originally from North Carolina, Lynch attended Harvard Law School, served as a federal prosecutor, and two separate stints as US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, having been appointed by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. In between those posts, she worked at a major New York City law firm and served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York.
But with her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she caused alarm among the chamber’s conservative members, due to an obvious unwillingness to uphold existing federal law.
Soon thereafter, serious and principled opposition to her candidacy has emerged around the country.
Liberal Democrats, in typical knee-jerk fashion, were quick to pounce on any hostility to the Lynch nomination as racism.
Senator Dick Durbin, in a most abhorrent display, accused Republicans, on the 50th anniversary of Selma, of forcing her to “sit in the back of the bus,” an obvious reference to Rosa Parks. Although his own opposition to Condoleezza Rice as the nation’s first female African-American Secretary of State on the 40th anniversary of Selma did not make the Senator’s speech, as South Carolina Senator Tim Scott reminded the Senate.
Despite the chorus of lies from the Left, there are serious reasons for opposing the nomination of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General, and race or sex has nothing to do with it.
Her past actions as a US Attorney, along with her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, provide enough reasons.
Perhaps the biggest opposition to her nomination, and what drew the most condemnation, was her support of President Obama’s lawless executive order on amnesty and the legal reasoning the White House used to justify it. She told the committee, “I don’t see any reason to doubt the reasonableness of those views.”
Other answers to illegal immigrant questions were also very troubling. When asked about the right of illegals to work in the United States, she said, “I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here.”
When she was asked if she would oppose the extension of Obama’s executive amnesty to all 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, she refused to answer, which means that she would support it.
Gun rights groups are also in opposition, with several pro-Second Amendment organizations calling her “Eric Holder 2.0” on the issue of guns. She supports Obama’s position on banning “assault weapons,” including the popular AR-15, and she was evasive on answers to questions about the “Fast and Furious” gunrunning scandal and about firearm rights in general.
There have also been serious allegations made about her conduct as US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, most troubling being a lack of empathy for crime victims and even the possible violation of two federal laws, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.
Despite such disturbing facts, on April 23, ten “Republican” Senators demonstrated their support for Lynch, helping the Democrats approve her nomination by a vote of 56-43.
Inexplicably, Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi voted to confirm Lynch, despite loud objections from conservatives.
It is troubling that these ten Republicans, including Thad Cochran, would relinquish their principles so quickly to ensure the Department of Justice is headed by another anti-Constitution, lawless radical.
Even pro-amnesty Senator John McCain opposed her nomination and chastised the few Republicans who supported her.
Make no mistake, her nomination was seen by many as a test case for conservatives in the Senate and for the entire GOP leadership of Congress. When given the opportunity, Republicans did not block this nomination to the nation’s highest law enforcement post. Indeed, despite having a numerical majority in the Senate, ten Republicans expressly supported her. We are therefore left to question the present leadership of our party.
The nomination of Loretta Lynch should have been opposed by every Republican in the Senate, not because of her race or sex, but because she has disqualified herself by siding with lawlessness over the rule of law, with policy over principle, and with ideology over the Constitution.
And those are not positions any Attorney General should ever take.
How is it possible to vote for such a nomination and be consistent with one’s oath of office to support and defend the Constitution?