Posted on 02/06/2015 4:22:10 AM PST by HomerBohn
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a steadfast opponent of the Obama administration’s use of executive actions to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, is facing opposition from members of his own party in his attempt to delay a Senate vote to confirm Loretta Lynch — President Obama’s nominee for attorney general — until the White House reverses itself on the executive actions.
Cruz explained his position in a statement made to Politico in the Capitol on February 3:
For several months now, I have called on the Senate majority leader to halt confirmations of every nominee executive and judicial, other than vital national security positions, unless or until the president rescinds his unconstitutional amnesty. We have an opportunity in front of us right now with Loretta Lynch — a nominee for attorney general — who has fully embraced and flat-out promised to implement the unconstitutional amnesty.
Politico reported the following day that Cruz’s proposal has been rejected by several influential GOP senators, including his Texas colleague, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn.
The Dallas News quoted a statement made by Cornyn in a call with Texas reporters on February 4, explaining that although he opposes Lynch as a nominee for attorney, unlike Cruz, he wants the nomination brought to a vote:
I will oppose that nomination. While [Lynch] has an impressive record as a United States attorney, as you know she will become the chief advocate for the president’s policies as attorney general. And her testimony, expressing support for the president’s unconstitutional executive action and her support for a number of the president’s other policies, make it impossible for me to vote for her nomination.
Up to that point, Cornyn and Cruz are in agreement. However, reported both the Dallas Morning News and Politico, Cornyn said that he rejected Cruz’s proposed strategy. “I don’t think [the Lynch nomination and the Obama executive actions] should be coupled together, no,” he said.
Last week, Cruz said in a statement to CQ Roll Call that the success or failure of the Lynch nomination would be determined by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) noting that McConnell could refuse to bring her nomination to the floor.
Cruz also asked his fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to vote against Lynch. “If every Republican on the Judiciary Committee votes ‘no,’ Ms. Lynch’s confirmation will be defeated,” said Cruz. “Likewise, if Republican leadership chooses not to report the nomination to the floor, Ms. Lynch’s nomination will be defeated.”
However, despite Cruz’s plea, McConnell has said that Lynch will “absolutely” get a vote in the Senate, but declined to comment further.
Other influential Republicans are also opposed to Cruz’s plan. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who is the presiident pro tempore of the Senate, has said he intends to vote to approve the Lynch nomination, offering justification for his position based on the “at least she’s not Holder” argument. “Republicans have been complaining about Eric Holder for a long time; this is an opportunity to make that change,” said Hatch. “I don’t think we should delay it at all. I think we ought to get her over there and get her working.”
When Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), was asked about Cruz’s strategy, he responded: “That’s not my position.”
Like Hatch, Flake has also said that he will support Lynch’s confirmation, saying: “The president ought to get his people as long as there’s no disqualifying substance there, and I don’t think there is with her.”
Flake’s stand is not surprising, considering that he was one of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” that drafted Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 that passed the Senate but was never voted on by the House.
Obama used the House’s failure to pass the Senate bill as justification to turn to the executive order route to accomplish the failed legislation’s objectives, saying that his solution was for Congress to “pass a bill…. The truth is that the Senate did a good job in crafting a bipartisan [“Gang of Eight”] bill that would have greatly improved our immigration system, and my preference is for a legislative solution to this problem.”
The “Gang of Eight Bill” (which granted amnesty to many illegal immigrants) was not Flake’s first venture into drafting amnesty-based legislation. Back in 2007, when he was still a representative, he joined Representative Luis Guitierrez (D-Ill.), one of the House’s most outspoken advocates of amnesty for illegal aliens, in sponsoring legislation that included a “path to legalization” (amnesty) for “undocumented” (illegal) immigrants.
“I applaud my friends Rep. Flake and Gutierrez for moving forward on immigration reform,” the late former Senator Edward Kennedy said in a statement in advance of the bill’s introduction. “They are our valued partners in this effort to forge a tough but fair bill that strikes the right balance between protecting our security, strengthening our economy, and enacting laws that uphold our humanity.”
Kennedy had partnered with Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who would go on to become another “Gang of Eight” member, in drafting a Senate bill that also provided amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Not surprisingly, McCain also opposes Cruz’s strategy, saying: “I don’t think [Cruz’s plan] works. I don’t think [Lynch’s confirmation and the Obama executive orders are] connected. I think we have an advise and consent role, and she should be judged on her merits or demerits.”
Republicans are now engaged in an uphill battle in the Senate to bring up a vote on a House-passed funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security that would repeal President Obama’s executive actions granting amnesty to five million illegal immigrants. While Republicans control the Senate, with 54 members, they are short of the 60 votes needed to end a Democratic filibuster and bring legislation to the floor for a vote. A recent vote to advance the Homeland Security funding bill got only 51 votes, showing that Senate Republicans are not even unified on that measure.
With Cruz’s proposal meeting so much resistance from members of his own party, it is apparent that the GOP lacks the unified resolve necessary to stop the Obama program to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.
Essentially the whole republican Congress is just laughing it up in the manner similar to that pic of ø, jarret and company being as giddy at their destruction of America.
Et tu a$$holes?
Is there any more reason for doubt?
Of course they do. For the most part, they serve as nothing more than the “conservative” wing of the far-left democrat party.
“Don’t rock the boat, Ted, the Constitution doesn’t matter any more. Our plan is SO close to coming to fruition - PLEASE stop trying to save this once-great country”
she’s street rat crazy and door stump stupid. what republicans would actually want that crazy witch?
oh yea, republicans that are democrat operatives. got it.
who are they and revoke their membership in the party.
why not? having an ‘R’ next to their name doesn’t do much if they’re constantly helping democrats
You should see the stuff being done on nearly every Walker thread by the "Cruz or lose" crowd. I sure wish folks would defend their guy instead of tearing down (often through lies or exaggerations) the other guy.
Orin Hatch! What a retard! Did someone remove his balls? He thinks they should vote for Lynch because she is not Eric Holder? Well, she is WORSE than Holder. Not only does she think and act just like Holder, she actually was involved in fraudulently setting up the US Senator from Alaska, Ted Stephens on trumped up charges which ended with the Democrats picking up the US Senate seat for Alaska. Not to mention serious misdeeds that have been carried out in the US Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of New York under her watch. She has no business being AG.
THE NEW AMERICAN, a posting from the Magazine of the John Birch Society.
Didn’t know they were still around, attended a few meetings in the early fifties.... lets dig up Franklin Roosevelt and George Marshall and tar and feather them.
We only have a precious few willing to stand up for the republic.
2010: GOP tell us we have to win the congress so we can oppose 0bama. But they do nothing.
2014: GOP tells us we have to win the senate to oppose 0bama. But they cave, do nothing.
2016: GOP will tell us that we need to vote for the establishment candidate to get rid of 0bama’s policies, rules and laws.
As Hitlery famously said “what difference does it make”
The theme of the entire 2016 campaign will be “what difference does it make”
We don't need to dig up FDR for a tar and feather party as we've got Bath House Barry and a host of his appointees AND all those complicit Republicrats.
At this point, the Republicans have everything to gain by keeping Holder as Attorney General, because Holder “can hear them jail doors clanging”, and is scared that all too soon he might be wearing federal pajamas himself, for the various and sundry crimes he has committed.
This has caused Holder to start doing his job well for a change, such things as ending the hateful scheme of giving police departments the ill-gotten gains of money and property confiscations.
His potential replacement, however, is such a crazy radical that she has probably told herself that she can do anything she wants and Obama will pardon her. And she is so Cynthia McKinney level nuts that heaven knows what evil she would perpetrate on the nation in the next two years or so.
So the bottom line to the senate is, despite whatever you might think political advantage you might get by approving her, don’t do it. Stay with the devil you know, not one itching to go crazy in a position of power.
The country does not need an insane Maoist Marxist as Attorney General right now. We truly don’t.
Yes, it is.
They aren’t terrified.
The GOP is an element of this government, and it supports the government agenda.
They are all members of the same club.
Everyone who is surprised by this, stand on your heads.
Hey Flake, you are stepping on your cord.
Lynch testified she would support what almost all of your colleagues describes as "unconstitutional executive action". I.e., she has announced that she will be an accomplice-in-fact of an executive branch that ignores the Constitution. HTH do you define "disqualifying substance"?
Man up pal, you told the voters you wanted to be in this gun fight.
I agree, although I support Cruz as my favorite, I accept that he may not be THE candidate in 2016, and I could vote for a few others - NOT Bush and NOT Hucklebee. NO WAY Lindsey G or Chrispy.
I like Palin, although her continued support for John McCain is a little hard to take, I also like Rand Paul (watch the haters come out), and maybe Walker. Although Rubio would be a little difficult, but maybe if he articulates a better position on immigration.
I have held my nose the last 2 elections and pulled the R lever, but I don't see myself falling in line with the R for Bush. At that point, Clinton or Bush doesn't matter, I would rather send a message to the GOPe by my NON-VOTE for Bush.
Because it’s OK to confirm someone that will continue Holder’s GetYT agenda.
Watch out for Cornyn. He’s getting ready to do his treasonous two-step again - vote for cloture to advance the candidate then ostentaciously vote against on the floor.
So the useless, lazy, spineless, republicans are going to replace Holder with someone who is just as lawless (We know this because of Cruz.) as he is. Whooohooo! What was the point of voting for them?
Why should that surprise you? If you have seen how the republicans operate for any length of time, say two seconds, you knew that they would fight Cruz tooth and toenail. But.........
The problem is that Ted Cruz showed them how to get rid of obamacare. Then someone turned out the lights and when they came back on Ted's back was full of Republican knives.
Lynch is no Holder; she is worse.
There are both cowards and collaborators in the GOP, and many are a bit of each. The net result is the same.
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.