Senate Confirms Loretta Lynch as Attorney General After Long Delay

William Haskins said:

Republicans have found themselves in a quandary for months. They longed to replace Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., and they agreed that Ms. Lynch was qualified for the job. But they opposed her because Ms. Lynch defended President Obama’s executive actions on immigrationwas nominated by President Obama.

Click to expand...

FTFY. (Or rather, for the NYT.)

William Haskins said:

Source: New York Times

Republicans have found themselves in a quandary for months. They longed to replace Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., and they agreed that Ms. Lynch was qualified for the job. But they opposed her because Ms. Lynch defended President Obama’s unconstitutional executive actions on immigration.

Click to expand...

FIFA (fixed it for Amadan)

There was NO justification for the Senate holding Loretta Lynch's nomination to be Attorney General hostage. Absolutely none. Lynch waited 10 times longer than the average attorney general nominee and had waited longer than the first 54 a.g. nominees combined from the presidencies of George Washington to Woodrow Wilson.

Both sides of the Senate share the blame for the historical delay. Harry Reid could have pushed for Lynch's hearings and floor vote to be conducted while Democrats still controlled the Senate, but he punted to Mitch McConnell, who proceeded to put the nomination in the deep freeze while Republicans squabbled with Democrats over the unrelated sex-trafficking bill.

Lynch's nomination was supported by wild-eyed liberals like Jeb Bush, Rudy Giuliani, former FBI director Louie Freeh and former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

Reid said today, “I guess I was naïve in thinking my Republican colleagues would treat Loretta Lynch with the dignity that she and her office deserve. Perhaps my mistake was forgetting that for Republicans, this isn’t about Loretta Lynch. It’s about President Obama.”

Click to expand...

Truer words were never spoken. I'm happy Loretta Lynch will become the first Black woman to hold the office as U.S. Attorney General. I'm unhappy she was treated so shabbily by the petty, partisan politics which have paralyzed the U.S. Senate.

c.e.lawson said:

FIFA (fixed it for Amadan)

Click to expand...

So, if she had not supported Obama's executive orders, they'd have been totally okay with her, right? It's all about concern over Constitutional issues?

Reid said today, “I guess I was naïve in thinking my Republican colleagues would treat Loretta Lynch with the dignity that she and her office deserve. Perhaps my mistake was forgetting that for Republicans, this isn’t about Loretta Lynch. It’s about President Obama.”

Click to expand...

nighttimer said:

Truer words were never spoken.

Click to expand...

LOL.

This from the guy who admittedly kept the Senate in pro-forma session to block the appointment of Steven Bradbury as an assistant AG?

There's no truth in Reid's words. He wasn't naive. That's ridiculous. He did as you first noted: punted the nomination. Why? Because he's a dishonest dick and doesn't care a whit about anyone. He knew where this was going and wanted the fireworks.

Although the argument doesn't seem to be made, as far as I can tell, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the president all the constitutional authority he needs to defer deportations (the power to grant pardons and reprieves).

In addition, the courts have pretty consistently ruled that the Executive Branch has the power to set enforcement priorities (which the deferred deportations pretty clearly are).

Amadan said:

So, if she had not supported Obama's executive orders, they'd have been totally okay with her, right? It's all about concern over Constitutional issues?

Click to expand...

Yes, the articles I've seen discussing the resistance to her stem from the fact that the Attorney General's job is to uphold the Constitution and appropriate execution of our laws, and if she supports Obama's blatantly unconstitutional executive action, then she shouldn't be confirmed.

Well, so much for any hope that the civil asset forfeiture problem will get fixed.

...during her tenure as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Ms. Lynch has used civil asset forfeiture in more than 120 cases, raking in some $113 million for federal and local coffers. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture cases is that they frequently inflict severe losses on people who have only the most tenuous connection with a crime – or even no connection at all.

Click to expand...

What a wonderful choice she was.

robeiae said:

LOL.

This from the guy who admittedly kept the Senate in pro-forma session to block the appointment of Steven Bradbury as an assistant AG?

There's no truth in Reid's words. He wasn't naive. That's ridiculous. He did as you first noted: punted the nomination. Why? Because he's a dishonest dick and doesn't care a whit about anyone. He knew where this was going and wanted the fireworks.

Click to expand...

Speaking of dishonest dicks, maybe Reid had a reason to block Bradbury's nomination to become Attorney General?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A coalition of progressive groups sought Monday to have 12 Bush administration lawyers disbarred for their roles in crafting the legal rationale for so-called enhanced interrogation techniques that many view as torture.

"It is time to hold these lawyers accountable for violating their legal oath," Kevin Zeese, an attorney for the coalition, said in a written statement.

"Just as the bar would suspend an attorney who advised a police officer to torture and brutalize a detained immigrant or criminal defendant, the bar must suspend these attorneys for advocating and causing the torture of war detainees. The disciplinary boards that hear these complaints must act or they will be seen as complicit in the use of torture."

Zeese called disbarment "an important step toward the ultimate accountability of criminal prosecution."
The group registered formal complaints against David Addington, John Ashcroft, Stephen Bradbury, Jay Bybee, Michael Chertoff, Douglas Feith, Alice Fisher, Timothy Flanigan, Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes II, Michael Mukasey and John Yoo.

Sources said investigators for the Justice Department's ethics unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility, have focused heavily on internal communications involving Bradbury, Bybee and Yoo.

The three former Office of Legal Counsel lawyers were top officials who provided legal guidance, including permissible interrogation procedures to the CIA and other executive branch agencies. Guidance written by Bybee and Yoo in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks allowed for harsh interrogation techniques that later were withdrawn.

Click to expand...

Suddenly, blocking the nomination of a guy under an ethical cloud from becoming an assistant Attorney General at the Justice Department doesn't seem like such a terrible move on Harry Reid's part. A guy who not only assisted in crafting the legal justification for the Bush Administration's torture policy, he went so far to proclaim during a Senate hearing, "the president is always right."

SEN.LEAHY: The president has said very specifically, and he’s said it to our European allies, he’s waiting for the Supreme Court decision to tell him whether or not he was supposed to close Guantanamo or not. After, he said it upheld his position on Guantanamo, and in fact it said neither. Where did he get that impression? The President’s not a lawyer, you are, the Justice Department advised him. Did you give him such a cockamamie idea or what?

STEVEN BRADBURY: Well, I try not to give anybody cockamamie ideas.

LEAHY: Well, where’d he get the idea?

BRADBURY: The Hamdan decision, senator, does implicitly recognize we’re in a war, that the President’s war powers were triggered by the attacks on the country, and that law of war paradigm applies. That’s what the whole case —

LEAHY: I don’t think the President was talking about the nuances of the law of war paradigm, he was saying this was going to tell him that he could keep Guantanamo open or not, after it said he could.

BRADBURY: Well, it’s not —

LEAHY: Was the President right or was he wrong?

BRABURY: It’s under the law of war —

LEAHY: Was the President right or was he wrong?

BRADBURY: The President is always right.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Harry!

By the way, robieae, your lame distraction aside, there were no similar objections to Loretta Lynch's nomination to replace Eric Holder, but I do appreciate it when you drop the phony "Who me? I'm impartial" schtick and reveal yourself to be every bit as rabid a partisan as anyone else in P&CE.

Don said:

Well, so much for any hope that the civil asset forfeiture problem will get fixed.



What a wonderful choice she was.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'm sure President J. Bush's or President H. Clinton's AGs will take care of that for you...

nighttimer said:

Speaking of dishonest dicks, maybe Reid had a reason to block Bradbury's nomination to become Attorney General?

Click to expand...

Maybe. But that's not really the issue here.

By the way, robieae, your lame distraction aside, there were no similar objections to Loretta Lynch's nomination to replace Eric Holder, but I do appreciate it when you drop the phony "Who me? I'm impartial" schtick and reveal yourself to be every bit as rabid a partisan as anyone else in P&CE.

Click to expand...

LOL, again. Partisan or no partisan, my point remains: when Harry Reid said "perhaps I was being naive," there was no truth in his words. He knew exactly what was gonna happen. I'm betting you realize this, as well.


But yeah, I don't much care for any of this. I don't object to Lynch, as I think the President should mostly get his or her way, when it comes to appointments. Bradbury was fine, too. And Reid's attempt to block that appointment was nothing but meaningless showboating, as Bradbury basically filled the role, regardless.

Senate Republicans, at least the leadership thereof, are now quietly licking their wounded paws on this one, and trying to figure out a way of spinning what they did to their advantage. Good luck with that one, Mitch. President Obama's approval ratings have risen considerably in recent weeks, in no small part because the behavior of prominent GOPers positioning themselves for the Presidential race, has been . . . well, to be charitable, less than inspiring. When ya got Ted Cruz and Rand Paul as the most visible faces of your party right now, you can expect some lumps.

caw

robeiae said:

This from the guy who admittedly kept the Senate in pro-forma session to block the appointment of Steven Bradbury as an assistant AG?

Click to expand...

nighttimer said:

Speaking of dishonest dicks, maybe Reid had a reason to block Bradbury's nomination to become Attorney General?

Click to expand...

robeiae said:

Maybe. But that's not really the issue here.

Click to expand...

Bullshit. You made it the issue here when you introduced this nobody Bradbury into the debate so you'd have a chance to exercise your Harry Reid Hate again while saying nothing about Mitch McConnell refusing to allow the Lynch nomination to be voted on.

robeiae said:

LOL, again. Partisan or no partisan, my point remains: when Harry Reid said "perhaps I was being naive," there was no truth in his words. He knew exactly what was gonna happen. I'm betting you realize this, as well.

Click to expand...

You lose that bet. While Reid screwed up by not bringing Lynch up for a vote while the Democrats still had the majority, what Reid hoped would happen was McConnell wouldn't jam up the president's choice based upon pure spite. Which was exactly what McConnell did.

robeiae said:

But yeah, I don't much care for any of this. I don't object to Lynch, as I think the President should mostly get his or her way, when it comes to appointments. Bradbury was fine, too. And Reid's attempt to block that appointment was nothing but meaningless showboating, as Bradbury basically filled the role, regardless.

Click to expand...

Bullshit squared.

Bradbury was a eager-to-please mouthpiece gave the Bushies the green light to torture with his legal blessing. Reid didn't "attempt" to block the appointment of Bradbury The Rubber-Stamp as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. Reid did block Bradbury from receiving a floor vote and that chapped your ass in 2005 and a decade later here you are still butt-hurt about it.

Are you familiar with the phrase "get over it?" If not you should because you are nursing a serious hate over Reid blocking your boy. Since when did you become such a fan of recess appointments?

You do object to Loretta Lynch. You object she formally got what Bradbury never did. The Democrats successfully stymied a political hack while the Republicans never found any strategy to prevent Lynch from becoming Eric Holder's successor as Attorney General.

Lynch escaped the Republican lynch mob and made history today while Bradbury will forever remain nothing more than fodder for a trivia contest.

nighttimer said:

You lose that bet. While Reid screwed up by not bringing Lynch up for a vote while the Democrats still had the majority, what Reid hoped would happen was McConnell wouldn't jam up the president's choice based upon pure spite. Which was exactly what McConnell did.

Click to expand...

Really? That's honestly what you think? At this point in time, after everything else, you think Harry Reid was this naive? Did you expect an easy confirmation for Lynch?

And I'm not sure how you can say "both sides share the blame" for this, if you think Reid simply erred in his expectations.

robeiae said:

Really? That's honestly what you think? At this point in time, after everything else, you think Harry Reid was this naive? Did you expect an easy confirmation for Lynch?

Click to expand...

As it turns out Lynch faced no significant opposition from the Judiciary Committee or from outside groups pressing for her nomination to be rejected. Lynch enjoyed bipartisan support including from solid Republicans including a leading presidential candidate and was easily confirmed once her nomination was brought before the full Senate. Including my state's Republican senator whom I personally wrote and called asking for him to vote "yea" for an obviously qualified candidate. I'll take some small credit for the final result.

So, yeah, I did expect an easy confirmation for Lynch because there was no question she was a superb choice. Unfortunately for her she got caught up in a political game which she had no part in with Reid and McConnell moving the pieces.

robeiae said:

And I'm not sure how you can say "both sides share the blame" for this, if you think Reid simply erred in his expectations.

Click to expand...

Sure you're not sure how I can say that because you're such a myopic partisan you refuse to acknowledge McConnell and the Repubs share any blame at all.

nighttimer said:

So, yeah, I did expect an easy confirmation for Lynch because there was no question she was a superb choice. Unfortunately for her she got caught up in a political game which she had no part in with Reid and McConnell moving the pieces.

Click to expand...

I'm puzzled. Because I agree.

So was Reid honestly naive or was he "moving pieces"?

Sure you're not sure how I can say that because you're such a myopic partisan you refuse to acknowledge McConnell and the Repubs share any blame at all.

Click to expand...

Not at all. They shoulder all of the blame for the delay. Especially Cruz. And I agree, it was completely unwarranted.

nighttimer said:

So, yeah, I did expect an easy confirmation for Lynch because there was no question she was a superb choice. Unfortunately for her she got caught up in a political game which she had no part in with Reid and McConnell moving the pieces.

Click to expand...

robeiae said:

I'm puzzled. Because I agree.

Click to expand...

No, you don't really agree. You've posted in this thread four times and not once have you placed any blame for the unprecedented delay of Loretta Lynch's nomination on Mitch McConnell's shoulders. It's all been about what Harry Reid did or didn't do.

robeiae said:

So was Reid honestly naive or was he "moving pieces"?

Click to expand...

Pass. Look elsewhere for answers to your Reid-bashing questions as I've had enough of the disingenuous mendacity of this line of debate.

robieae said:

Not at all. They shoulder all of the blame for the delay. Especially Cruz. And I agree, it was completely unwarranted.

Click to expand...

Cruz, the pretentious turd that he is, took to the Senate floor to denounce Lynch, but skipped the vote.

Sen. Ted Cruz skipped the vote to confirm Loretta Lynch as attorney general on Thursday — just three hours after he took to the Senate floor to rail against her nomination.

“Eric Holder began disregarding the Constitution and laws after he was confirmed as attorney general,” the Texas Republican, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, said on the Senate floor shortly after 11 a.m. “Ms. Lynch has told the Senate that’s what she’s going to do.

“And that means each and every one of us bears responsibility,” Cruz continued. “In my view, no senator can vote for this confirmation consistent with his or her oath.”

The Senate later voted 56-43 to confirm Lynch. Cruz was the only member of the chamber not to vote. He did participate on a procedural vote earlier, opposing clearing the path for final confirmation.

The senator has drawn scrutiny over his attendance record in his short time on Capitol Hill. POLITICO reported earlier this week that Cruz has missed the vast majority of hearings for the Armed Services Committee, is below-average in attendance on his other major committees and ranks 97th during the first three months of this year in showing up for Senate floor votes.

Cruz missed another key Senate vote this week — to pass a sex trafficking bill that was caught up for weeks due to an abortion-related dispute. The vote was 99-0, and Cruz was the sole missing senator then, too.

Click to expand...

I wonder how long it will take Rand Paul and Marco Rubio to mention Cruz's propensity to miss important votes when it's their turn to speak during the GOP debates?

The only thing a bigger joke than a lazy bum like Cruz "running" for president is he has enough support within the Republican Party to make him viable, if not electable.

nighttimer said:

No, you don't really agree. You've posted in this thread four times and not once have you placed any blame for the unprecedented delay of Loretta Lynch's nomination on Mitch McConnell's shoulders.

Click to expand...

Except for that forth time when, of course, I did.

robeiae said:

Except for that forth time when, of course, I did.

Click to expand...

You don't get credit for doing what you're supposed to do.

The shameful spectacle of Loretta Lynch Held Hostage and her long overdue release was witnessed in person by her father.

It took a long ride through the night to get here. They’d started out in Durham, at 1 a.m., Thursday, driving six hours, all so the Rev. Lorenzo Lynch (83 on Tuesday) could sit in the back row of the visitors’ gallery above the U.S. Senate floor, his dapper yellow straw hat in his lap, and watch history — part of it his own personal history — unfold.

“I like this,” he said in his high whispery voice as senators ambled back and forth and chatted, seemingly oblivious of the import of the vote. “It shows the vigor of our system. In America, certain forces have led, and others have kicked back. Seven steps forward, three steps back. It started with slavery. There were good people then too. It’s still going on. We’re not done.”

Finally, at a little before 2 in the afternoon, it was over. By a surprisingly comfortable 56-43 vote, Lorenzo’s daughter, Loretta Lynch, was confirmed as the first black female attorney general. Lorenzo Lynch’s creased face and slightly sunken eyes registered no change as the tally was announced and a group of black congresswomen who had come to watch broke into furtive applause (which is not allowed in the Senate chamber). How did he feel? “Fine,” Lynch said. A pause, then a hint of a smile, and his always-ready humor. “The good guys won.”

Among the good guys, it turned out, were a few Republicans who jumped over to Lynch’s side at the last minute, including Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and even Mitch McConnell, the majority leader. But the Lynch supporters did not include Lorenzo and Loretta’s two home-state senators, Thom Tillis and Richard Burr, Republicans both, despite sometimes tearful personal pleading from Loretta Lynch supporters across the state. Burr, a pastor’s son from a progressive Presbyterian church in Winston-Salem, “should have known better,“ said Lorenzo Lynch.

As is well known by now, Republicans turned Lynch’s nomination into a proxy fight against President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration. Later, it became entangled in a debate over an abortion provision in a human-trafficking bill, a process that dragged on for weeks. In his floor speech on Thursday, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz repeatedly denounced Lynch as “lawless” for her refusal to repudiate the president’s policies, particularly on immigration.

But for many black people in North Carolina, the opposition of their own two senators to a nominee who was so widely praised was seen as more than political. Tillis, a freshman, gave several different reasons for his intention to vote against her — including that Lynch, who managed the huge Eastern District U.S. Attorney’s office, didn’t have enough management experience. Burr said he would vote no because Lynch had supported Justice Department challenges to North Carolina’s 2013 voter registration law. But critics say that law is aimed at disenfranchising minority voters by cutting back early voting, ending same-day registration and requiring photo identification. (For the record, Tillis and Burr have said race played no part in their opposition to Lynch.)

link

Click to expand...

As if they would have said it did. Rev. Lynch is wrong about one thing. At least back in slavery Southern senators like Tillis and Burr would have been honest with why they were blocking progress.

More information on the great Loretta Lynch.

There's no evidence she pulled back on drug prosecutions in her district. She's a big supporter of asset forfeiture. She's engaged in "secret prosecutions" on at least 58 occasions since 2010. Her office has yet to act one way or the other on the case of Ramarley Graham, who was shot and killed by a New York City police officer in 2012 after being chased over a small amount of marijuana. So Lynch doesn't even seem to hit Eric Holder levels of respect for civil rights.

Click to expand...

I've already mentioned her record on civil asset forfeiture. She's also lukewarm on sentencing reform, an area where Holder showed serious interest, and she's a science denier, still claiming marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol in the face of mountains of evidence to the contracy. Even Obama has faced up to that inconvenient truth.

Don said:

More information on the great Loretta Lynch.

I've already mentioned her record on civil asset forfeiture. She's also lukewarm on sentencing reform, an area where Holder showed serious interest, and she's a science denier, still claiming marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol in the face of mountains of evidence to the contracy. Even Obama has faced up to that inconvenient truth.

Click to expand...

I see you got your information about Lynch from the libertarian leaning Reason site.

What's the problem? Gunwatch hasn't updated the blog with a scathing investigation into how Loretta Lynch will likely take it easy on teenage--sorry--Black teenage criminals?

nighttimer said:

I see you got your information about Lynch from the libertarian leaning Reason site.

What's the problem? Gunwatch hasn't updated the blog with a scathing investigation into how Loretta Lynch will likely take it easy on teenage--sorry--Black teenage criminals?

Click to expand...

Dude, when your links are coming from HuffPo, come on.

Amadan said:

Dude, when your links are coming from HuffPo, come on.

Click to expand...

I fucking hate the fucking Huffington Post and Arianna Huffington too, but proving even a blind squirrel can stumble across a nut, when they got a point, they got a point.

If you really want a "Dude, come on" moment go click some of Don's links in that gun thread you and he got heated about.