Republicans Who Voted For Loretta Lynch Voted For The Abuse Of Executive Power

Mitch McConnell could have made a case against Obama’s overreach. Now, he’s complicit.

From: thefederalist.com,  by: David Harsanyi,  on: April 24, 2015,  see the article HERE.

Three peas in a pod

Three peas in a pod – our country would be better off without any of them in power.

It’s pretty simple. After years of griping about Barack Obama’s abuse of executive power, the GOP finally has a chance to do something about it.

So Mitch McConnell makes a deal: If Democrats agree to stop blocking a human trafficking bill over some boilerplate language regarding abortion funding—a position that made them look unreasonable—Republicans, with all the leverage imaginable, will help confirm another attorney general nominee who will rubber stamp the president’s many overreaches.

Loretta Lynch was confirmed in a 56-43 Senate vote. McConnell was a Yea. Here’s Joel Gehrke at the National Review reporting on why:

‘People are very nervous about Republicans not being willing to have a vote on the first black woman attorney general,’ according to one GOP senator who spoke on condition of anonymity. Republicans agree that Lynch is qualified for the job — ‘probably the most qualified nominee that’s come out of this White House,’ concedes Senator Richard Burr (R., N.C.), who voted against her confirmation.

Those are two awful reasons.

Do senators have a duty to defer to the president’s choices simply because the nominee has an impressive resume? Or do they take oaths to uphold the Constitution? There’s little doubt that Lynch has the professional credentials necessary for the job, but a nominee for Justice Department’s top position disqualifies herself when she can’t, for ideological reasons (or won’t, for partisan ones) concede that there is a single genuine limitation on presidential power. The role of Congress is to check the executive branch, not expand its reach.

Before the showdown over the human trafficking bill, it was McConnell, along with many others, who protested Obama’s unilateral immigration policy directives on legal grounds. Yet, Lynch told senators she believed the president had acted well within his powers. So how does McConnell rationalize not only allowing a vote to come to the floor but whipping the 60 votes needed to avoid any confrontation with the majority of his own party?

“I voted against her because even though I walked into her confirmation process with an open mind, hoping and even expecting to like her, I couldn’t vote for her because she refused to answer any of my questions about prosecutorial discretion and its limits,” Sen. Mike Lee, whose grilling gave Lynch the most trouble, told The Federalist. “Even as I made the questions more and more obvious, and gave her hypotheticals which I thought made the question clearer, she refused to answer.  It’s not because she doesn’t have the capacity, it’s because she had concluded that she wanted to share as little information as possible and, apparently, she responded well to coaching. I found that troubling.”

Lee had offered a hypothetical scenario wherein a governor wanted to raise the speed limit from 55 miles per-hour to 75 but could not convince the legislature. Could that governor decide to unilaterally instruct his highway patrol to not enforce the speed limit? Could he issue permits to drivers who wanted to exceed the limits established by statute?  “I thought that was a pretty reasonable hypothetical,” Lee explained.  She refused discuss the scenario.

Lee then asked about a hypothetical president who decides that tax rates are too high and no American should ever have to pay anything above 25 percent. Congress disagrees. So, can that president now instruct his administration not to collect any taxes above the 25 percent? Is that a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion? “She wouldn’t really answer that one either,” said Lee, whose new book is fittingly titled, Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America’s Founding Document.

Then, of course, as with most debates these days, there is the Democrats’ habit of conjuring phantom racism whenever things aren’t going their way.

Yesterday, POLITICO ran a lengthy feature detailing some of Lynch’s history, treating every criticism of her as a racial slight. And for every story that implied there was a scandalous reason for stopping Lynch, a Democrat openly alleged that Republicans were delaying the vote because of bigotry. “Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman nominated to be attorney general, is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar,” Dick Durbin said.

It’s a potent attack, obviously, as Republicans recoil whenever it’s deployed. A number of susceptible 2016 Republicans—Kelly Ayotte, Ron Johnson, Rob Portman, among others—voted to confirm Lynch. If the GOP believes that a single voter has changed their perceptions about politics over the Loretta Lynch confirmation, they’ve been in DC way too long. What’s far more likely is that the incident reinforces the idea that accusing your opponents of racism works. Well, for Democrats.

At the very least, Republicans had an opportunity to make a compelling case against the president’s unilateral governance by voting no. It would not have changed the outcome. Instead, GOP leadership is complicit. McConnell will continue to boast about the Senate being productive again. And, to be fair, things have been running a lot smoother since the GOP took over. No more obstruction. Just a lot of capitulation.

~~~~~~~~~~

All we have to do is look at the names of the RINOs who voted with the democrats to confirm Lynch and we see the “usual suspects.” It is plain that Lynch will just continue where Holder left off – rubber stamping whatever Barack Obama wants. She’s already admitted to a couple of areas that ought to be enough to disqualify her – she opines that Obama’s overreaches are ok and that illegals have just as much right to a job as a U.S. citizen.

And even more worrying is the fact that she refused to respond to direct questions by Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, knowing full well that her answers would disqualify her (if she answered truthfully). We are still in, and will remain in deep excrement until a Republican wins the White House. Until then, the Constitution might as well be scribbled in crayon on toilet paper for all the good it does us.

Garnet92

 

 

 

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Republicans Who Voted For Loretta Lynch Voted For The Abuse Of Executive Power

  1. Hardnox says:

    This is very frustrating to say the least. I don’t get it. The R’s were elected/reelected to throttle back King Putt, not to help advance his agenda. Lynch will be nothing more than Holder but with a skirt… possibly worse.

    • Garnet92 says:

      So true Nox – but all you gotta do is look at the list of Republicans who voted to confirm her and see the same old names – including McConnell – talk about a traitor to the philosophy of the party, he’s IT.

  2. Kathy says:

    The race card works, and it will be business as usual at the DoJ. We’ll barely even notice that Holder is gone.

    The 2014 elections were basically a waste of time and money because it changed nothing. Both the House & the Senate leaders are working for the other side and the will of the people be damned.

    • Garnet92 says:

      You know, we’d probably be better off if we had lost the 2014 elections but thrown McConnell and Boehner out. Just losing those two for conservative leaders would probably net us more positive results than winning the R counts and keeping those two dumbasses.

  3. Foreston says:

    What is also troublesome to think about is what Holder might do next. The possibility of this lawless globalist on the loose should make the whole world take cover!

    • Garnet92 says:

      True Foreston – we’re in a heap of trouble when we have a POTUS and an Attorney General who are both lame ducks and have nothing to lose by their actions. God help us.

  4. vonMesser says:

    I note Burr said she was the most qualified nominee to come out of the White house – and then he voted against her because she was not really qualified to do the job. This says a lot about the quality of WH nominees.

    • Garnet92 says:

      I’m assuming that he meant according to her resume – it does look impressive, but more important than how she looks on paper is her ideology and it is apparently totally parallel to Obamas and that ain’t good.

  5. tannngl says:

    Miss Lynch’s appointment was brought up for a vote due to the Senate voting for cloture. They all wanted it. Takes 3/5 of the entire senate to vote for cloture. The Republicans did this along with the Dems. Limited filibuster.
    Then the senate needs only 51 votes to pass the appointment of Miss Lynch.
    My gun banning ‘tea party’ senator, Toomey voted for cloture then he could afford to NOT vote for Miss Lynch because he has an election coming up.
    Pretty smart, huh?

    They are such slimy lying weasels.
    And Loretta Lynch is a racist judge. Plain and simple.

    • vonMesser says:

      With 51 votes, they could have killed her nomination. I would have voted for cloture also, expecting the Republicans to stand on principal. This would have required Obama to come up with another AG (and another, and another, and another until he got one that was at least semi-impartial)

      • tannngl says:

        Why would you expect the R’s to stand on principle? When have they in the last 6 1/2 years?

        I wouldn’t have voted for cloture. Debate and allowing this demon’s deeds to be aired would have been a good thing. In my opinion, of course. But, opinions are like belly buttons. We all have one.