Senate confirms Loretta Lynch as next U.S. Attorney General

Los Angeles Times ^ | 04/23/2015 | TIMOTHY M. PHELPS

[SeekAndFind]

Loretta Lynch, after being kept waiting in the wings by the Senate for five and a half months, was confirmed Thursday as the first African American woman to serve as Attorney General.

Lynch was approved 56-43, one of the narrowest margins in history for an attorney general nominee.

The vote ended an unusually partisan episode in modern Senate confirmation history, in which a largely uncontroversial nominee to one of the top cabinet posts was kept out of office for a lengthy period over issues extraneous to her job.

[Genoa]

the first African-American woman

A first! Whatta headline!
Identity politics is all the media cares about. That's the main reason they're hell-bent on promoting Hillary and covering up for her on a daily basis.

[The Cajun]

Backstabbed again by the GOP-E, they never fail to do it when it counts.

[Old Sarge]

The people of Wisconsin need to say “Hell, no!” to the crap that the lawless thugs have done

Unless of course, they APPROVE of such tactics, thinking "it won't happen to me"...

[conservativejoy]

I wouldn’t doubt that McConnell knew that Ted had a flight to catch and a commitment he couldn’t miss and delayed the vote deliberately. They stood around scratching their behinds for three hours!

[zzeeman]

Hatch came on the show and outright lied to him, Mark knows better now!!

[Sarah Barracuda]

Its just a shame that they couldn’t spend FIVE MINUTES looking this woman up online..they would have seen her Anti Israel sentiment..geez it was all over twitter, these Senators tweet..but why bother, its not like they care anyway

[Rummyfan]

Why do we have a Republican Senate? What difference does it make?

[Genoa]

I wonder if any of them tweet personally instead of using a social media ghost.

[zzeeman]

...that they would hold their feet to the fire to insure that they did.

Yes, I remember seeing that over and over and over; my only guess is that they are just having a hard time getting a grip on the feet of those slimy rascals!!

[cookcounty]

What difference does it make?

Seriously.

Holder says he’ll stay in office until replaced, she says she believes in WWHD (What Would Holder Do?). So, we’re just screwed. At least until January 20, 2017.

[zzeeman]

With all due respect, if you are surprised about that from Johnson, you haven’t been paying close attention.

[zzeeman]

Johnson needs to read Andy McCarthy's article:

3. The President Not Entitled to His Choice of Subordinates

There is a prudential guideline that, in the absence of disqualifying circumstances, the Senate should defer to the president’s choice of high executive-branch officials. There is a sound rationale for this guideline: Under the Constitution, all executive power is vested in the president. It is his power and his subordinates wield it only at his pleasure — even if they have been confirmed by the Senate. A prudential guideline is not, however, a legal rule, much less a constitutional obligation. If a senator treated this prudential guideline as if it were a requirement, this would effectively nullify the Constitution’s advice-and-consent mandate that the Senate provide meaningful review of the president’s nominees — thus violating the senator’s oath to uphold the Constitution.

A president who is violating the Constitution is not owed any deference, much less deference in the selection of a nominee to help him violate the Constitution. A president is not entitled to deference for a nominee who is disqualified — as is a nominee who testifies that, if confirmed, she will undermine the Constitution. Finally, the Senate’s power to veto nominations is not just a check on the nominee. It is a check on the executive branch. If a president is violating the Constitution, a senator who has taken an oath to support the Constitution has an obligation to use the power over confirmations to pressure the president to comply with the Constitution. Consequently, President Obama is not entitled to deference, because he is violating the Constitution; and his nominee is not entitled to deference, because she has announced that she will violate the Constitution. Under those circumstances, a senator who rationalizes voting to confirm the nominee on the ground that the president is entitled to his preferred nominee is undermining the Constitution’s advice-and-consent requirement, as well as violating the senator’s oath to uphold the Constitution.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417344/lynch-vs-constitution-andrew-c-mccarthy?target=author&tid=900151

[cornelis]

Thanks for that.

[Lazamataz]

Yup, the jig is indeed up. Now that they have the system completely rigged, they feel no more need to hide.

What to do?

I have only two viable ideas at this time:

Cleave to the Lord, who is the Rock in our world, and can give you love and stability in the worst circumstances, and is the only form of Law that is just and loving, and....

Wait for the system to collapse, outright, and it will. Probably I will be long dead by then. But the soviet system collapsed, the European socialism model is choking, the Chinese system is teetering, and now we rush headlong into the same system.

[zzeeman]

That wouldn’t surprise me in the least....

[exit82]

Another donation to Cruz.

Thanks for nothing, GOP-E/Uniparty.

[b4its2late]

For us and the US.

[mrsmel]

Laz, that’s exactly where I am-cleave to The Lord, and give thanks that I’m an old lady. I don’t see any of this changing considering the indoctrination of the majority of the young. Anyway, the Bible has already told us that things will get much worse before they get better.

[RginTN]

Vote GOPe...they’ll confirm Obama’s extremists nominees and punish Conservatives who oppose them.

[GOPJ]

This one’s bad news...