Questions for the Nominee

Townhall.com ^ | November 13, 2014 | Judge Andrew Napolitano

[Kaslin]

Within hours of realizing that his party lost control of the U.S. Senate last week, President Obama nominated Loretta Lynch, the chief federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, N.Y., and an outstanding and apolitical professional, to be the next attorney general. The current attorney general, Eric Holder, resigned last month.

Lynch is sure to be confirmed by either the present Democratic-controlled Senate this fall or by the newly constituted Republican-controlled Senate early next year -- and she should be. But the process of confirming her should capture the interest of all Americans concerned about the loss of personal freedoms in our present-day Orwellian world in which the Obama administration has killed innocent Americans, spied on trillions of conversations and emails without probable cause, and declined to enforce laws with which it disagrees. Republican senators have a duty to ask her probing questions.

Is this just inside-the-Beltway stuff, or should you care who is the chief federal law enforcement officer in the land? You should care, and here is why. When the United States was founded, the essence of the government was the diffusion of power between the states and the federal government. At the outset, state attorneys general were the engines that drove law enforcement, as the U.S. attorney general was involved exclusively with governmental relations between the states and the feds and protecting federal interests -- which included federal property and federal currency. The job came with a small office and a handful of remotely venued prosecutors. The states checked federal law enforcement excess by not cooperating with it or even judicially invalidating it.

Today, the opposite is the case. When the feds want something, they bully the states aside, and when the feds get away with something, the states will soon follow. Today, the states are powerless to check federal excess, and so Attorney General Holder became President Obama's enabler in some of the most egregious violations of the natural law, the Constitution and federal law in modern American history. Today, the attorney general -- often called "General" by law enforcement -- commands an army of 90,000 lawyers, FBI agents, investigators, clerks, pilots, even troops. There are currently in excess of 4,000 federal criminal statutes for her to enforce, and she sets the tone for law enforcement throughout the country.

Hence, I suggest to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that they permit Lynch to distinguish herself from Holder by inducing her to answer the following questions:

--Will you advise the president, as Holder did, that his careful, secret, conscientious deliberations about the legal guilt of some Americans are a constitutionally adequate substitute for due process, such that he can kill uncharged, untried, unsentenced Americans?

--Do you defend the president's killing two innocent American children, as Holder did?

--Will you advise the president that he can use his prosecutorial discretion in such a manner that American borders become open as they did for Central American children last summer, and that foreign nationals who are here illegally can legally remain here without complying with the laws Congress has written?

--Will you tell the president that the NSA can disregard the Constitution and execute general warrants, which permit the bearer to search wherever he wishes and seize whatever he finds, even though the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent general warrants?

--Can the president decline to enforce laws with which he disagrees without violating his oath to enforce federal laws faithfully?

--Will you advise the president that he can subpoena the home telephone records and the personal email accounts of Associated Press and Fox News reporters, as Holder did?

--Will you permit state and local police and the IRS to seize the property of known innocents who have not been charged with criminal behavior, much less convicted of it, and then retain much of the seized property even if the persons from whom it was seized are acquitted?

--Will you permit law enforcement to break the law in order to enforce it?

--Will you condone law enforcement using tanks and battering rams to deliver subpoenas?

--Will you permit law enforcement personnel to create crimes so that they can solve the crimes they created and then boast about the crimes they claim to have solved?

--Do you accept the presumption of liberty, which means that the government must respect individual choices unless and until it can prove violations of the law to a judge or jury?

It is time for a national debate about the role of law enforcement in our lives, and the confirmation hearings on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to become attorney general can provide an excellent platform. If she agrees that the Constitution is not a neutral instrument as between the people and the government because it was written to keep the government off our backs, she will be an antidote to Obama's law breaking.

But I think I may be wishing for too much. She is, after all, his nominee.

[Servant of the Cross]

Excellent questions from an excellent Judge.

[Travis McGee]

I can’t wait for the senate confirmation hearings, NEXT YEAR.

Let’s stand pat during the lame duck session. Time is on our side.

And if the Congress can’t get the fedgov monster back into its constitutional restraints, I say move ahead with Levin’s vision of a state-run Article V convention. We have about enough state legislatures now to force Frankengovernment back into its cell.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Holder has some ‘splainin to do before he leaves...

[Thommas]

Excellent questions all. I would be awed if even 5 of them get asked.

[arthurus]

an outstanding and apolitical professional

???

[Gaffer]

Good questions, but what I want MY two Georgia Senators to do is to vote NO for anything that Obama wants. That includes any of his nominees. Alas though, I expect traitor Zax and spineless Johnny to cast two quick AYE votes for her.

[arthurus]

if the Congress can’t get the fedgov monster back into its constitutional restraints,No way this is going to happen.There is no opposition party. The Republicans are "opposition" only in that they want their turn at the goodies.

[servo1969]

Lynch:

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Yes

6. Yes

7. Yes

8. Yes

9. Yes

10. Yes

11. Yes

I was chosen for a reason, you know.

[Eddie01]

Good questions? Sure, I guess. You can get her on record lying at least.

All you really need to do is dig up her past affiliations, statements and record. That is the only way to vet her.

[Arm_Bears]

Da judge had drunk the kool-ade.

[DJ MacWoW]

Donate And Keep The Lights On

[Junk Silver]

“Holder has some ‘splainin to do before he leaves...”

Sure.

It’s a good thing there isn’t a lawless chief executive in the White House who long ago promised a pardon to this thug.

[grobdriver]

President Obama nominated Loretta Lynch, the chief federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, N.Y., and an outstanding and apolitical professional, to be the next attorney general. The current attorney general, Eric Holder, resigned last month. Lynch is sure to be confirmed by either the present Democratic-controlled Senate this fall or by the newly constituted Republican-controlled Senate early next year -- and she should be.

Wow!
So much BS in such a short bit of writing.

1. "apolitical professional"? If nominated by Barry you can bet your last dollar that ain't true.

2. "sure to be confirmed"? Popcorn.

3. "and she should be"? Goto 1. If Barry wants her, the American public sure as hell doesn't.

4. "Democratic-controlled" Grrr... any time I see this written or spoken I know there is either a Democrat bias, or stupidity or laziness involved, I don't care which - I am immediately suspect.

[Travis McGee]

It can come up from the grass roots via the state legislatures.

ARTICLE V

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"

[Travis McGee]

In the 50 states, there are 99 state legislative chambers altogether, and 87 of the 99 chambers held state legislative elections on November 4, 2014.
The Republican and Democratic parties each sought, in November, to move partisan control of the various state legislative chambers into their column. Heading into the election, Republicans technically controlled 57 chambers while the Democratic Party technically controlled 41 chambers, with Nebraska being non-partisan. However, the Republican Party was part of a ruling coalition in two additional state senates (New York and the State of Washington), giving it the partisan edge in 59 chambers, with the Democratic Party having partisan control in 39.

http://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2014

[Travis McGee]

39/59=66%.

[exit82]

Some scuttlebutt I found this morning that the Dems, including Reid, are pissed off at Obola, and want to delay hearings on Lynch until the new Senate is seated.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/223598-dems-unlikely-to-ram-through-obamas-attorney-general-pick

Obola is on a mission to destroy America, and the Dems are on a mission to survive until 2016.

Not the same thing.

Pass the popcorn—this should be good.

[CPOSharky]

It does not matter what the questions are, her answers will be whatever she believes will get her the job.

[RetSignman]

Lynch,Loretta
The chief federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, N.Y.
Born May 21, 1959
Chosen as Attorney General by president November 2014.

Now the question is, how will 0 and the democraps use her name as a racial issue during confirmation.