Posted on 01/29/2015 6:07:23 PM PST by SeekAndFind
We’ll start off the day with some video goodness for you. As previously noted, confirmation hearings for Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s nominee to replace Eric Holder, got underway this week. One of her inquisitors was Senator Ted Cruz (R – Tex) who had plenty of questions, many related to the performance of the current Attorney General and how her approach might differ, if at all. The conversation would, in my opinion, be described as polite and professional, while still being confrontational. This first section (which starts in the first couple of minutes in the video below) deals with the limits of discretion in prosecution.
With regard to the limits of executive power, Sen. Cruz asked, “Let me ask about your understanding of prosecutorial discretion. Would it allow a subsequent president… to state that there are other laws that the administration will not enforce – labor laws, environmental laws – would it allow a president to say every existing federal labor law shall heretofore not apply to the state of Texas because I am using my prosecutorial discretion to refuse to enforce those laws? In your judgment, would that be constitutional?”
Nominee Lynch responded, “Again, I would have to know what legal basis was being proposed for that.”
Sen. Cruz continued, “I find it remarkable that you are unable to answer that question. I can answer it straightforward. It would be patently unconstitutional for any subsequent president to refuse to enforce the tax laws, or the labor laws, or the immigration laws for the very same reason that President Obama’s actions refusing to enforce immigration laws are unconstitutional. And it is discouraging that a nominee who hopes to serve as attorney general will not give a straightforward answer to that question.”
Here’s that first video:
There was additional goodness, involving everything from drone strikes to free speech and whether or not the office of the Attorney General should act as an independent agent in upholding the constitution or as a political arm of the White House. Follow the next two links for the videos of those. Not much more to say here, other than noting that these are the distilled good bits from a long day on CSPAN. (Please note that these videos are not in chronological order.) Enjoy.
Anyone want to bet he votes to confirm her?
I know the vast majority will and mc Connell will lead the way.
Look at her qualifications> Hispanic and a woman.
If the repubs DARE oppose her, they are doomed in 2016, war on women and hate Hispanics.
She dodged every single question. She refused to give an answer to any question that was asked and just blurted out talking points.
If this were a court of law, she would have been jailed for contempt of court.
If she's Hispanic, then I'm Chinese.
This is some good stuff. Would you mind posting a link to the actual first video so I don’t have to click on HotAir? That website really messes with this computer. Thank you.
No, I’m off to Video 3.
These type of statements can look embarrassing in the future if say a GOP takes the WH, for example Cruz.
Back when GWB was POTUS Mark Levin said that the Senate minority filibustering the POTUS judicial nominees was unconstitutional, and that they should change the Senate rules.
Then in 2009 the SAME Levin called for GOP minority in Senate to filibuster Obamas judicial nominees, guess its no longer unconstitutional.
Then when Dems changed the rules as he recommended that other Senate do he freaked out. Just because his fans dont remember things he said in the past doesnt mean no one else does.
We may want a GOP POTUS to not enforce some laws.
I’m sorry, being a woman is qualification enough.
If Ted Cruz votes against Lynch, he’ll be denounced all the way into the White House.
Liberals denouncing a conservative seldom ever back it up with fists, knives, or guns. All they do is kvetch and whine. What’s Elizabeth Warren going to do, go up to Cruz & kick him in the shins?
And if they do jump ugly, there are “too many rightwingers with guns & concealed permits out there”.
2016 may indeed be 1968 repeated, but with one huge difference if you get my drift.
Wow, that was a long way around to state that you support situational ethics, maybe we should just move to full anarchy. There are plenty of laws I don’t like and plenty more regulations, but I think awareness and repeal far outweigh situational ethics and oath breaking.
Two more years of this crap.
Is Cruz Mark Levin? What does Cruz’s quote have to do with filibustering anyway? Also filibustering to prevent a vote is not the same as voting no for in the Advice and Consent process.
Levin said it was unconstitutional when GWB was POTUS and then ~ three years later told the GOP to do it when Obama was POTUS. The constitution to him obviously says different things depending on who is POTUS.
In this case we may want a GOP to not enforce some of those things that he hypothetically suggests they wouldnt.
In fact like Levin did, Cruz may want it too in the future.
Obama has set precedent on this and not fighting fire with fire is like surrendering to Dems.
If your enemy drops his stick and picks up a gun you don't say "Well, I wont do the same because its against the rules." and wave your stick at him, you get a BIGGER gun.
This woman is DANGEROUS, just look at her history..she was involved in a school organization that were supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah..she despises Israel..but most likely she will be confirmed I wouldn’t be surprised if she was
The limits of government power. And he means it.
Her connection to Holder’s wife here :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3252063/posts?page=20
Would you oppose a GOP POTUS not enforcing some of the Obamacare mandates and taxes if the GOP couldn’t get a repeal out of the Senate?
Or is the magic fix claiming its unconstitutional and then not enforcing it is magically OK.
maybe we should just move to full anarchy.
I hear whispers here and hints there that Aricle 25 might be pulled on zero before too much longer.
I could not believe Lynch. I KNEW THE ANSWERS TO THE SENATOR’S QUESTIONS .. and I was in shock when she pretended not to know what he was talking about.
I could tell he was ready to leap over his desk .. but, he remained calm and matter of fact. But, I detected a little clenching of the teeth on his part.
WHAT I REALLY LOVED (and it caught her totally off guard); Senator Cruz gave her a complete summary of everything they had talked about. I just love to watch this guy in action. He’s just brilliant .. as Dershowitz said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.