Posted on 04/22/2015 3:08:54 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
A response to my email sent earlier to Sen McFlake, Democrat-lite from Arizona:
"As you may know, on November 7, 2014, President Obama nominated Loretta Lynch to replace Attorney General Eric Holder. On February 26, 2015, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary voted to approve Ms. Lynch's nomination by a vote of 12 to 8. I voted in favor of her nomination.
I believe that elections have consequences and that elected presidents should be afforded a certain degree of deference in the presidential appointment process, particularly when the nominee is uniquely qualified. While I disagree with Ms. Lynch on a number of issues, including her views on the President's executive action on immigration, she is nonetheless well-qualified for the position. "
Ronald Reagan won 49 states and 60 percent of the vote in 1984; Robert Bork was nominated in 1986. “Justice” Bork didn’t seem to be the consequence of THAT election, did he Mr. Flake?? What an appropriate name.
Arizona is being invaded on its southern border and this fool will vote for an AG who thinks every illegal alien has a RIGHT to work here.
Spit.
Only in DC is someone who tells you in advance that the law is irrelevant uniquely qualified to be Attorney General.
Flake is a moron.
“I believe that elections have consequences “
And what is the consequence of your election, Flake? Do we have a jerk that repeats stupid memes and is willing to rubber stamp Osama nominees? Vote the bitch down, make him pick someone who is slightly less of an ***hole, advise and consent. Not rubber stamp.
What a disgusting, despicable thing to say--as an excuse to lie down and play dead. Name one Democrat Bolshevik who EVER said that as a reason to quit fighting for THEIR goals.
I just read about a survey that showed that most people 18-35 (or something like that) believe the President appoints the members of Congress.
Only in DC is someone who tells you in advance that the law is irrelevant uniquely qualified to be Attorney General.That is exactly what came to my mind too when I read Sen Flake's position on the Lynch nomination.
Egad, did Flake even listen to Ted Cruz's questions put to Lynch in the Senate Judiciary hearing and her responses regarding the Constitutional limits of the power of the POTUS!? Even in hypothetical scenarios carried to absurd extremes of executive overreach posed by Cruz, Lynch refused to answer.
Cruz describes his line of questioning of Lynch and the reason he will vote unambiguously NO on her nomination in this short video clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swmjn3-zi20&t=0m36sIt's well worth viewing to gain a better understanding of how truly irrational it is to put Lynch in charge of the U.S. DOJ.
HEY FLAKE.....SHE MAY BE ‘WELL-QUALIFIED’ FOR THE JOB BUT SHE WANTS TO BREAK THE LAW.......SHOULDN’T THAT ALONE DISQUALIFY HER?????
PS-AREN’T ATTORNEYS WHO BREAK THE LAW USUALLY DISBARRED????
An admirable sentiment. However, how many non-RINOs do we have in the Senate? 10? 20?
That is one scary statistic.
Sorry to say McCain is bought and paid for in Arizona.
” And what is the consequence of your election, Flake?”
Flake would vote for the devil, if he believed the nominee would encourage illegal immigration. He lives for it.
160% PURE WHORE.
More evil than McCain.
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.