Eric Holder only prosecutes whistleblowers. He didn't prosecute financial crimes on Wall Street. He didn't prosecute for murders of unarmed black citizens. He didn't prosecute the CIA or NSA or Private Security companies for illegal surveillance.
Now, we have another person who is nominated, Loretta Lynch. Mrs. Lynch worked representing Wall Street banks during her career. Do you think we'll see any prosecutions?
I guarantee we'll only see prosecution of whistle-blowers and other "enemies of Obama".
Now, we have another person who is nominated, Loretta Lynch. Mrs. Lynch worked representing Wall Street banks during her career. Do you think we'll see any prosecutions?
I guarantee we'll only see prosecution of whistle-blowers and other "enemies of Obama".
2
She handled herself well and gave reasoned answers. No reason apparent not to confirm her appointment. But at the same time, she is a shadow copy of Holder. This is not what we actually need.
We need an AG who enforces the law, not creates it. Another Obama minority ultra liberal is something we do not need after the disaster with Holder.
4
Marty, it appears you do not recognize "political theater" when you see it. Loretta Lynch is a prosecutor now, but worked for major Wall Street banks during her career. She will not prosecute any financial crimes, so don't worry: your retirement accounts will be in more danger every year.
As far as being "liberal", what does that mean? Does that mean only obsequiously talking with Wall Street criminals? Well, you have to recognize that Republicans showed sycophantic behavior when they questioned any of the Wall Street bankers. "Oh, Mr. Banker, you're so rich and good.... I'm so sorry we have all these burdensome regulations.... can I rub your feet?"
You should learn to see through propaganda. See what policies help you versus the policies that only help the rich.
As far as being "liberal", what does that mean? Does that mean only obsequiously talking with Wall Street criminals? Well, you have to recognize that Republicans showed sycophantic behavior when they questioned any of the Wall Street bankers. "Oh, Mr. Banker, you're so rich and good.... I'm so sorry we have all these burdensome regulations.... can I rub your feet?"
You should learn to see through propaganda. See what policies help you versus the policies that only help the rich.
2
Don't worry. I suspect that in your lifetime there will be many, many male, white AGs.
1
It appears republican Congressmen/women are too dumb to realize if they passed an immigration bill in both the House and the Senate, they would not have to worry about Obama's Executive Orders.
The committee spent most of their time bashing Eric Holder. They could get rid of him by approving Ms. Lynch's appointment.
The committee spent most of their time bashing Eric Holder. They could get rid of him by approving Ms. Lynch's appointment.
1
C, we HAVE an immigration law. Me. Obama admitted that he couldn't rewrite it by autocratic fiat. New laws are not only unnecessary but would be ignored as well.
You would obviously benefit by reading up on American history, since your schooling must have come in the age of Forget the Past.
And do NOT start with America-hater H. Zim.
You would obviously benefit by reading up on American history, since your schooling must have come in the age of Forget the Past.
And do NOT start with America-hater H. Zim.
1
Eric Holder stands out as a titan in comparison to any USAG who ever served under any POTUS named Reagan, Bush or Clinton.
While they were all making war on poor Black non-violent drug offenders and poor Blacks on welfare they were allowing Wall Street to pillage and plunder while kidnapping, torturing and indefinitely detaining folks.
The House Republicans have been busy trying to shut down the government while trying to deter and suppress Black voters. Holder says and does things with regard to race that Obama can not.
While they were all making war on poor Black non-violent drug offenders and poor Blacks on welfare they were allowing Wall Street to pillage and plunder while kidnapping, torturing and indefinitely detaining folks.
The House Republicans have been busy trying to shut down the government while trying to deter and suppress Black voters. Holder says and does things with regard to race that Obama can not.
1
Have you any familiarity with drug laws written by Democrat state legislatures? That's wher the hard line CAME from.
Holder's problem is that AGs swear to uphold the law and the Constitution. If he was too cool to do so he should never have accepted the post he would later besmirch and sully.
Holder's problem is that AGs swear to uphold the law and the Constitution. If he was too cool to do so he should never have accepted the post he would later besmirch and sully.
1
Her fear of discrimination is mental disorder. She is obsessed with this idea-fix. As Holder she believes that laws on voters ID are racist measures, aimed to reduce turnout. I'm afraid a person with such a subjective way of thinking is unable to cope with capacity of attorney general.
2
My understanding is the GOP once again came up with a solution to a problem that does not exist.
2
Eric Holder is held in disdain by many white Americans esp. Republicans for first saying that in relation to the discussion on race in America "we are a nation of cowards". He was absolutely correct. His tenure as AG has been badgered because of that initial statement. And for of course, calling it as it is in relation to blacks and white establishment.
No one wants a black man of any station shouting out the fact of America's system of apartheid.....
No one wants a black man of any station shouting out the fact of America's system of apartheid.....
6
No, it's because Eric Holder is a gangster.
3
...Especially one who casts aspersions on peoples asparagus!
A K@ Any black man that speaks assertively using strong syntax to state the obvious is seen as a threat. Self determination of blacks have always been a threat, why do you think law and policy was made to subvert the advancement of blacks? Fear of what they could achieve if given fair and equal opportunity.
You are reinforcing a stereotype. When a white politician speaks forcefully he is seen as honest and straightforward. When a black politician does so he is "thuggish" or "gangster-like".
Just proves this nation is rife with hypocrisy and racial angst....
You are reinforcing a stereotype. When a white politician speaks forcefully he is seen as honest and straightforward. When a black politician does so he is "thuggish" or "gangster-like".
Just proves this nation is rife with hypocrisy and racial angst....
2
A feeling that Loretta Lynch is another puppet of Obama. We must understand that she will pursue a policy that Obama considers it necessary. Nothing changes in this country. This indicates a serious political crisis.
7
All the Senate needs is oversize shoes and a big red nose.
Bozo would be ashamed.
Bozo would be ashamed.
3
Was being black a prerequisite for the job?
2
Was it for a Bush Secretary of State ?
2
Probably. Bush had the same problem his father had. He tried desperately to get the media to like him. An impossible task.
1
She's going to be confirmed, why wouldn't she be since she is an outstanding candidate? So Republicans took the opportunity to grandstand about someone who was also an outstanding candidate and who has been an exceptional AG. I suspect that what drives Republicans in congress mad about Holder is exactly what drives them mad about Obama. He's an exceptionally smart black guy who is a member of the national elite (you don't become a partner at Covington and Burling through affirmative action) while most of them are essentially small town hicks elevated by a political system marked by the presence of much mediocrity as has been noted by observers from de Tocqueville onwards. Acheson, who wasn't black but very much an elitist (also a partner at C&B) who tended behave towards the more prominent idiots in congress as Holder does, provoked a similar irrational level of animus. There are a lot of very small men at the head of today's Republican party.
17
John@ Very accurate and well stated...
1
She has great presence, and no record to blast. She handled the testy Republicans with aplomb and good manners. They can really have nothing against her except that she was appointed by a man they have chosen to be their nemesis.
9
She's very qualified and competent. It's a shame she will be working for President Obama and believes that illegal immigrants have a "right" to work. That is controversial and will hardly unite Americans.
12
That's not controversial; it's jst wrong. In an otherwise successful hearing, I found it astonishing that a nominee for U.S. Attorney General is willing to ignore that U.S. law specifically states the opposite. The President even used to brag about having enforced employment laws that bar illegal aliens from working. She may win confirmation, but this will start her off on the wrong side of Congress, the law, and history. Pity.
11
Is that all the Republican Right can muster? You don't like or agree with the president's policy? Is that a rationale for interrupting the administration of justice across the board by leaving the U.S. without an Attorney General with terrorism and other threats that abound, especially from the paranoid spectrum of the right? Or might there be better more productive avenues to pursue that agenda? I am not suggesting pro-active gun toting roadblocks of busloads of children in border states, but perhaps a legislative initiative to resolve this in congress but actually engaging in doing its job. While we're on that subject - how about a more active role in sending our troops off to war? Seems there a lot of things can be voted on while allowing the Justice Department to have a capable professional provide direction - otherwise they'll have to take their lead straight from the president evidently hated so much by those who would hold up this appointment.
7
This immigration issue along with a myriad of other immigration concerns
should have been dealt with by the 112th and 113th congress’s, that since 2010 have endured unceasing obstruction led by Boehner in the House and McConnell in the Senate, and are the most shameful, lowest rated and least effective in US history.
should have been dealt with by the 112th and 113th congress’s, that since 2010 have endured unceasing obstruction led by Boehner in the House and McConnell in the Senate, and are the most shameful, lowest rated and least effective in US history.
1
Interesting. I listened to some of the hearing. And she speaks well. Both calmly and forcibly.
“You’ve asked how I will be different from Eric Holder,” Ms. Lynch told Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas. “I will be Loretta Lynch.”
"On the issue of immigration, Ms. Lynch said she found it “reasonable” that the Justice Department had concluded it was lawful for Mr. Obama to unilaterally ease the threat of deportation for millions of unauthorized immigrants. Mr. Holder similarly endorsed that view."
which was not the same as her defending either side in a case yet to be filed.
I can picture a lot of Republicans scratching their heads at a Georgetown bar tonight.
“You’ve asked how I will be different from Eric Holder,” Ms. Lynch told Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas. “I will be Loretta Lynch.”
"On the issue of immigration, Ms. Lynch said she found it “reasonable” that the Justice Department had concluded it was lawful for Mr. Obama to unilaterally ease the threat of deportation for millions of unauthorized immigrants. Mr. Holder similarly endorsed that view."
which was not the same as her defending either side in a case yet to be filed.
I can picture a lot of Republicans scratching their heads at a Georgetown bar tonight.
3
She's ten times the law-interpreter Holder is - but we simply can't have any more lawless AGs. Sorry.
3
Ms. Lynch handled Ted Cruz's nonsense questions -- baiting hypotheticals of transparently partisan silliness -- with well-spoken, impeccably graceful aplomb. (You should find it and replay it if you did not hear it live.) All Cruz accomplished for the sake of his grandstanding ego was to give Ms. Lynch the opportunity to display her brilliance and analytical capability, both essential traits for a position of legal advisement to the President.
15
Ted Cruz is only allowed on any committee to placate the tea party. This is how our politics are going to become more ridiculous by the day with the new Congress. And Loretta Lynch is fairly uncontroversial.
Grandstanders will not miss an op to grandstand.
For republicans posting on immigration, tell your representatives to pass a bill already instead of blocking and obstructing and yelling about Obama. Govern. Then O won't have to issue executive orders.
Grandstanders will not miss an op to grandstand.
For republicans posting on immigration, tell your representatives to pass a bill already instead of blocking and obstructing and yelling about Obama. Govern. Then O won't have to issue executive orders.
11
Super-impressed with Loretta E. Lynch.
5
If a roadblock is set up by Sessions and Cruz it will fail. Lynch has impeccable credentials.
6
Calling her performance "flawless" is ridiculous when she agrees that the NSA can spy on American's with impunity.
19
Yes that was a ridiculous response. But Obama also holds this position too. Sadly they seem to forget that (esp. for blacks) the rights of the people should never be challenged or abridged. By spying on Americans and justifying it as a security measure is opening the door for some idiot to be elected, using this ostensible need as an excuse to ratchet up surveillance on Americans.
We had enough of that from Hoover who violated the rights of blacks consistently, doggedly, and without question from the govt.
That history alone should cause one to pause. However, some of these affluent educated blacks forget that what's most important is a society free from tyranny. Freedom to live our lives without being monitored. Indoctrination has affected their sense of liberty also.
We still have a long way to go.....
We had enough of that from Hoover who violated the rights of blacks consistently, doggedly, and without question from the govt.
That history alone should cause one to pause. However, some of these affluent educated blacks forget that what's most important is a society free from tyranny. Freedom to live our lives without being monitored. Indoctrination has affected their sense of liberty also.
We still have a long way to go.....
2
Why do all these people feel a Republican Congress has to do what Democrats want?
That's not how it works people.
That's not how it works people.
16
Naw, you're right, Randy. The Republicans should just go on doing what they've done for the past six years. Absolutely nothing.
13
Ha, deny her confirmation and get an unbridled Eric Holder for two years please.
2
I can't believe anyone would want another Holder which is what Ms. Lynch represents working in in the Government that sat there and stated that she thinks its perfectly all right for anyone that is illegal to cross our sovereign border and work. Sorry but we are not part the European Union which anyone can walk across what used to be borders to work. She agrees completely with what President Obama is doing because I believe she and the President had a long talk about just what she did consider illegal about him giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens apparently the lady passed muster. I guess Ms. Lynch forgets that because we have a sovereign country with laws on the books that protected her and her family so that they could work and she could attend any college she could afford. What if her slot in the college that she wanted to attend had been given to a student that was just given amnesty? How would she feel to be pushed aside by someone that entered this country illegally? No, I am completely against a confirmation of this lady.
21
barb3000@ At first glance your comment seemed questionable. You are absolutely right. Those who have made ultimate investments in this country, those of us who have suffered and died for rights that now are being handed out just because you made it into this country is plain ludicrous.
It is an insult to Native Americans and for blacks who have always had to fight to exercise full rights in this nation.Or the immigrants who came through Ellis Island having to work extremely hard to move upward and assimilate.
For someone to waltz in and receive the same rights engenders resentfulness.
The argument that they are "hard workers" is weak. Blacks have broken their backs to build this nation. Irish, Italian,Poles broke their backs to build this nation. Chinese broke their backs to build this nation. The list goes on, it didn't start with those people as some would suggest.
Anecdotally, having some work done on an apartment disproved that "working hard" theory. Those guys did a lousy job, a really lousy job on the apartment.
Immigration can be done the right way or the wrong way. The right way is the people that went through the process, the wrong way is those who didn't. Have we now become so distorted as to not know what's right or wrong? Excuses don't make it right.....
It is an insult to Native Americans and for blacks who have always had to fight to exercise full rights in this nation.Or the immigrants who came through Ellis Island having to work extremely hard to move upward and assimilate.
For someone to waltz in and receive the same rights engenders resentfulness.
The argument that they are "hard workers" is weak. Blacks have broken their backs to build this nation. Irish, Italian,Poles broke their backs to build this nation. Chinese broke their backs to build this nation. The list goes on, it didn't start with those people as some would suggest.
Anecdotally, having some work done on an apartment disproved that "working hard" theory. Those guys did a lousy job, a really lousy job on the apartment.
Immigration can be done the right way or the wrong way. The right way is the people that went through the process, the wrong way is those who didn't. Have we now become so distorted as to not know what's right or wrong? Excuses don't make it right.....
3
Let's not confuse the confirmation of this very qualified person with the Congress' failure to enact immigration reform. If commenters would like to deport every person currently in this country illegally (12 million?), then urge your representatives to appropriate the billions of dollars to employ law enforcement officers to find them, court personnel to try them (and to provide legal representation), and other personnel to escort them to the border. And while doing so, don't let the GOP's "family values" get in the way of breaking up families as would certainly be the case.
Those who would pursue this path are not thinking clearly about the issue. The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill...but the GOP House refuses to even bring it to the floor. Look no further than John Boehner to find where the failure on immigration resides.
Those who would pursue this path are not thinking clearly about the issue. The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill...but the GOP House refuses to even bring it to the floor. Look no further than John Boehner to find where the failure on immigration resides.
21
SB744 was not a good bill, did not enforce border security, no modern visa tracking. Comprehensive in what sense? Read it.
2
Racism is alive and well in our country. If we take a look at immigration non of us except Native Americans would be allowed to be here.
6
Biggest obstacle to Lynch confirmation is that she (like Mr. Holder) is black.
9
Was that also why Clarence Thomas was given such a hard time by the Dems?
5
I was surprised when asked if who has more of a right to employment in this country, a citizen or an undocumented person, she replied that it did not matter as long as they're working. If I was an unskilled worker and a citizen, I would be very worried about this. It's like the government is outsourcing my job in my own country.
25
Rhett should give up. With Republicans in control of the Senate, it will take an act of God to get a progressive black woman confirmed for any cabinet position. Bigotry in the Senate is ascendant, though the majority will strive to deny it.
5
Ha, ha GOP is in a real big box; they can deny her nomination and deal with Atty Gen Holder last two years.
10
While it provides interesting theater for all of the political pundits to mull over, the truth is that Ms. Lynch is the choice of President Obama to be the next AG....and so it will be.....End of story.
Now can we please get on with the business of running the Country.
Now can we please get on with the business of running the Country.
6
What is David Vitter doing there? Their's a great moral/ethical example if I ever saw one. Guess he knows his legal stuff though getting around his own "scandal".
6
So, Senators Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and David Vitter of Louisiana weren't able to make a sound legal argument that the President's immigration policy is illegal. They just don't like it. So, Senator Vitter will vote against a well qualified nominee for Attorney General and the others might also. They obviously think their partisan opinions should override U.S. law.
5
I believe Mrs. Lynch, further explaining her position to Senator Leahy, said that legal immigrants had a right to work in this country. By the time this gets to O'Reilly, she will be quoted as saying that absolutely nobody should ever be deported. Sean Hannity, whose show is later, will tell Fox viewers that Loretta Lynch wants to fire all Americans so only illegal aliens can have their jobs. She said that civil rights were a right of all persons. Does the right wing think that cruel and unusual punishment and other abuses should be OK for immigrants? I watched the hearings, this is a classy lady who should be confirmed.
5
Don't we still not have a surgeon general because of the same senators disagreeing over whether gun violence is a health problem?
How much can we criticize the Obama administration if it's not even his?
How much can we criticize the Obama administration if it's not even his?
5
Senator Schumer says "the President's immigration policies are not seeking confirmation today."
But who is seeking confirmation today is the nominee for U.S. attorney general, and the attorney general must put the nations laws above petty politics of the administration and enforce those laws.
Ms. Lynch seems reluctant to do so with our immigration laws.
But who is seeking confirmation today is the nominee for U.S. attorney general, and the attorney general must put the nations laws above petty politics of the administration and enforce those laws.
Ms. Lynch seems reluctant to do so with our immigration laws.
11
Excuse me, the Attorney General is a MEMBER of the administration -- anyone elected POTUS gets to nominate an AG. Senate gets to vote on the nomination but does not get an AG of its own. We've been doing it this way for 200+ years.
8
The Immigration EO is not an unconstitutional or illegal action. No one cares about it unless there is a Democratic President. The Gop Congress knows this but preys on their weaker supporters by lying to them with loads of misinformation. God Bless America!
Lynch was great today, not rattled at all; but crisp, clear answers. I hope I never see her in Court against me. That would be very scary!
Lynch was great today, not rattled at all; but crisp, clear answers. I hope I never see her in Court against me. That would be very scary!
I watched a good part of Loretta Lynch's confirmation hearing. In my opinion, she was one of the best candidates that I have ever seen testify before Congress in a confirmation hearing, including but not limited to US Supreme Court candidates. She was candid, articulate and persuasive. She is an an excellent objective, career, federal prosecutor, and has served twice as the US Attorney for the Eastern District. She declines the limelight, and is a prosecutor's prosecutor/attorneys' attorney. She deserves confirmation, simply since there is no better candidate, on any political persuasion.
13
Having listened to some of the process this afternoon as well as other public pronouncements, David Vitter should quit his day job and join Fox News. He already stated he would vote against Lynch before he heard her testimony, a perfect description of fair and balanced. I guess Mr. Vitter never understood the etymology of the word prejudice.
39
Ms. Lynch will be opposed by some Republican Senators simply because she was nominated by President Barack Obama. Her position on the Presidents immigration action is obviously a red herring. What did they expect she would answer to such a question? "The President is breaking the law." Silly question.
If Senators want to attack Obama's immigration policy, and truly believe he hasn't the power to act as he did, they have a Constitutional right to demand that the House investigate and impeach. Why haven't they acted? Are they wimps? Doormats? It appears easier for them to pick on a Black woman at her nomination hearing rather than do their jobs.
If Senators want to attack Obama's immigration policy, and truly believe he hasn't the power to act as he did, they have a Constitutional right to demand that the House investigate and impeach. Why haven't they acted? Are they wimps? Doormats? It appears easier for them to pick on a Black woman at her nomination hearing rather than do their jobs.
23
Our next AG approves of an American worker being fired and replaced with a cheaper illegal immigrant. That's how the American establishment feels, from Schumer to the Koch brothers - that's how they get rich.
The only chance American voters had to express themselves directly on illegal immigration was in liberal Oregon, where they voted 2-1 against giving driver's licenses to illegals. They were overturning a bill already signed by the governor, and they were outspent by 10-1.
The only chance American voters had to express themselves directly on illegal immigration was in liberal Oregon, where they voted 2-1 against giving driver's licenses to illegals. They were overturning a bill already signed by the governor, and they were outspent by 10-1.
17
No, she said she didn't see anything wrong in the legal basis for the President's action. She offered no opinion on immigration. And having people that are going to get behind the wheel of a vehicle pass a test is probably a good idea. Immigration law is one thing and highway safety is another.
5
Here's a novel idea: how about we stop those particular "people that are going to get behind the wheel of a vehicle" from doing so? Leaving aside the questionable validity of the president's EO, we already have a set of immigration laws on the books. Until they're changed, presumably it's the job of the AG to see they're enforced - and to assist the proper authorities who attempt to do so, not hinder them.
There is no person that this congress would ever vote for. That is the plan.
6
She clearly stated her view that illegal residents have an equal right to American jobs, even if legal residents and citizens are competing for those jobs. She can not be allowed to become our chief legal officer, because she clearly has no regard for fairness, the law, or the American people.
27
Annie Vincent: how many square feet of office space is there in Manhattan? Give up: 520 million! And, every night an army of hundreds of thousands of men and women, many working for minimum wages all night long, descend on those thousands of office buildings, cleaning polishing, vacuuming, adding toilet paper, etc. so that when the tenantts come in the morning, everything is nice and clean in their 40, 50 or 60 floors buildings. If tomorrow we deport all undocumented people, secretaries and clerks will have to empty their own waste baskets, and replace the toilet paper in the staff bathrooms.
4
another Eric Holder..if she believes on how O handle the illegals situation that is a good reason that maybe you should think twice about giving her the job.
we don't need another Eric Holder! buy be beware!
we don't need another Eric Holder! buy be beware!
5
Ted, relax, the market will find replacements. The problem is the replacements will be paid more, so the maintebance costs will go up. The people skimming off the "profit" from underpaying these workers will get pinched. So sorry.
1
Of course it was a trap for Obama to nominate Lynch and keep Holder on until a successor is named. At every step in this process, it is the new appointee who is running against Holder, whom the Republicans hate; they have to ask themselves which they would prefer: to keep Holder, who no doubt will be giving them more reasons to get rid of him, or just to move on with a new AG who will take months to get going, in time for the next election.
3
Reading through the misinformation indignantly posted in these comments is very disheartening. For one, Pres. Obama is well within his legal authority to have issued an executive order regarding immigration. A plain question to ask in that regard is, if it's not legal, then why was Pres. Reagan's similar and more sweeping executive order on immigration (1986) also not legal or why isn't that also an example of 'dictatorship' or 'tyranny'? For another, it's worth remembering Obama finally issued the order because John Boehner refused to bring the bi-partisan immigration reform bill passed by the senate to a vote on the house floor. And again, if one is going to rant about the lesser actions Obama took on immigration, yet still give Reagan a complete pass, one is not approaching the subject with any credibility whatsoever. As an attorney general nominee, Loretta Lynch is correct to stand on the side of the law and against the complete fiction peddled nonstop by conservative media.
22
Then why did our constitutional scholar say 22 times that such action was beyond his authority?
7
@ghinfla, This '22 times' meme is currently so ubiquitous in conservative circles, I felt compelled to track down its source. It's no wonder people are so confused when the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is shamefully misguiding people from the Speaker's own website. Everything posted there is an attempt to misdirect away from the fact that the actions Pres. Obama took are within the scope of his executive authority as POTUS. The Speaker posts 22 quotes, but not a single, substantive, factual argument as to what is actually 'illegal' about the executive order Obama issued. Think about it. Note also that Pres. Obama is *still* calling on Boehner and Congress to pass an immigration reform bill and the GOP is *still* refusing to do so.
18
June, you might be misinformed yourself. Any American citizen, including legal immigrants with a green card, falls under the "right to work" clause. That does not mean anyone dropping into the USA by illegal means. I know, since I was once an immigrant and had to go through the process. President Obama really does not have the right to make laws. It is up to the Legislative branch. That is our system and no one should be able to bypass it!
3
All things are possible, but I can't imagine anyone being as bad as Eric Holder at least not since John Mitchell.
6
No. Wall Street banksters walk free.
5
Did they walk free before or after Obama's bailout?
cc: you need to check and see who was in the White House when the legislation to bail out the financial industry was passed. (Hint: he's from Texas).
2
That Ms. Lynch apparently believes that illegally-present foreign nationals have a right to work in the United States should effectively bar her from becoming Attorney General.
27
She did not say that. Read it again.
1
If everyone in the US has the right to work, as she stated, can tourists now hold jobs in the US? What about those currently not authorized to work by visa?
Why should the people without papers have more rights than the people with papers?
Why should the people without papers have more rights than the people with papers?
22
They don't. Facts please.
10
That was stated by the nominee - everyone in america has the right to work. Did you watch the video? It was the first thing she said.
6
"Why should the people without papers have more rights than the people with papers?"
Especially when, under Obamacare, since they are not required to be insured they offer the employer a minimum $3,000 advantage over hiring either an American or legal immigrant!
Especially when, under Obamacare, since they are not required to be insured they offer the employer a minimum $3,000 advantage over hiring either an American or legal immigrant!
What she agrees is the authority of the president to exercise prosecutorial priority and not necessarily the illegal immigration itself. We are still waiting for the Congress to come up with a better idea to reform the immigration laws.
20
Yes, that is correct. But, the Republican Funeral wants us to believe something entirely different. Thank you. ( p.s. Looking forward to that new Republican dictionary.)
6
SBK, this is an incredibly easy answer.
When the rule of law has been repeatedly violated over the past few years, actually enforcing written law in effect as passed by Congress IS the better idea you seek. When, say, I've been eating WAY off diet for a month, doing anything that is planned becomes a new option for me.
PLUS the people enforcing and patrolling the border won't hate their jobs for a huge change.
When the rule of law has been repeatedly violated over the past few years, actually enforcing written law in effect as passed by Congress IS the better idea you seek. When, say, I've been eating WAY off diet for a month, doing anything that is planned becomes a new option for me.
PLUS the people enforcing and patrolling the border won't hate their jobs for a huge change.
4
That's not what she said. Are you her interpreter?
2
What President, whether Republican or Democrat,would appoint an attorney general that is not on the same page as the President??? If the Republicans follow through, our nation will go without an attorney general for the next two years. Governance by obstruction!!! Why would anyone vote for a Republican?
17
Given Holder, no AG is better than a clone!
This out of control prog extreimist "president"needs throttled back
This out of control prog extreimist "president"needs throttled back
5
The Honorable Eric Holder, anticipated this eventuality. He will not leave office until a replacement is confirmed.
3
Why did Harry Reid hold up votes on 40+ "jobs bills" that were passed on bi-partisan votes out of the House? Governance by obstruction!!! Why would anyone vote for a lying Democrat?
5
She's been so kind to her friends on Wall Street, I imagine that it will be, "New boss, same as the old boss."
Hopefully she won't be as bad on whistleblowers, and will give up FOIA information without the media and public having to file suits for what should be eminently disclosable info.
Hopefully she won't be as bad on whistleblowers, and will give up FOIA information without the media and public having to file suits for what should be eminently disclosable info.
4
She should be summarily dismissed from her current post and from consideration for AG for clearly allowing her personal beliefs to prevent her from enforcing the law.
And the Democrats will cry "obstruction" because they don't get what they want, although it is a legitimate exercise of democracy.
And the Democrats will cry "obstruction" because they don't get what they want, although it is a legitimate exercise of democracy.
14
I don't believe that she holds an elective office at present. SO! Legitimate exercises of Democracy have no power over her.
2
She supports Obama and his executive actions. We don't need her.
21
Loretta Lynch appears to be a capable career lawyer.
Unfortunately, she gave the wrong answer to questions on illegal immigration.
I cannot support as highest lawyer in the land one who condones illegal immigration and Obama's attempts to provide amnesty to illegal immigrants.
This is an affront to all law-abiding Americans.
If it is OK to cross the border illegally, why not evading income taxes?
Obama is robbing from America's poor, those who have obeyed America's laws, to provide benefits, including jobs, to people who willfully broke the law.
Obama should be impeached.
And Loretta Lynch should be denied confirmation.
Unfortunately, she gave the wrong answer to questions on illegal immigration.
I cannot support as highest lawyer in the land one who condones illegal immigration and Obama's attempts to provide amnesty to illegal immigrants.
This is an affront to all law-abiding Americans.
If it is OK to cross the border illegally, why not evading income taxes?
Obama is robbing from America's poor, those who have obeyed America's laws, to provide benefits, including jobs, to people who willfully broke the law.
Obama should be impeached.
And Loretta Lynch should be denied confirmation.
30
I don't support her nomination but at least she was honest which is something new and different.
6
And you, middle American, Docker wearing, mini van driving, shoe store mgr. , can get over it.
3
If you think you have convincing evidence for an impeachment proceeding, you should send it to the House Republican leadership. They would dearly love to impeach President Obama for anything.
1
Lynch supports Obama's "policy" which is to condone law breakers living in the U.S.A. working illegally.
Both are unfit although Obama was elected so will stay in office.
Rejecting or condoning breaking laws that you don't like is bad behavior. This contributed to the epic destruction of the Democrats in the November 2014 elections.
I think some people haven't gotten the memo yet: Americans know that millions of illegal workers 1. drive down wages 2. raise social costs 3. burden productive American taxpayers.
Who will be a voice for the American worker? Surely not Loretta Lynch.
Both are unfit although Obama was elected so will stay in office.
Rejecting or condoning breaking laws that you don't like is bad behavior. This contributed to the epic destruction of the Democrats in the November 2014 elections.
I think some people haven't gotten the memo yet: Americans know that millions of illegal workers 1. drive down wages 2. raise social costs 3. burden productive American taxpayers.
Who will be a voice for the American worker? Surely not Loretta Lynch.
40
The Senate passed a Immigration reform bill 18 months ago.
It would pass the House if it were brought up for a vote.
But Boehner won't bring it up for a vote because it would offend the Tea Party.
If you don't like Obama's executive actions, tell Boehner to bring the bill for a vote.
It would pass the House if it were brought up for a vote.
But Boehner won't bring it up for a vote because it would offend the Tea Party.
If you don't like Obama's executive actions, tell Boehner to bring the bill for a vote.
16
So? Are you implying the existing laws in place should NOT be enforced because there is legislation working its way thru Congress? How very Obama-esque of you.
6
Americans know lots of things that are not true, beginning with your list that has no basis in fact.
4
In the video, first question by Sen. Sessions
Jeff Sessions: Who has more right to a job in this country, a lawful resident, a US citizen or a person who entered unlawfully?
Lynch:The right and obligation to work is shared by everyone in this country regardless of status. If someone is here ,regardless of status, I’d prefer they be participating in workplace than NOT participating in workplace.
She thew him off his game by that answer. I bet Sen Sessions wasn't expecting that answer. That answer sealed the deal for me.
Jeff Sessions: Who has more right to a job in this country, a lawful resident, a US citizen or a person who entered unlawfully?
Lynch:The right and obligation to work is shared by everyone in this country regardless of status. If someone is here ,regardless of status, I’d prefer they be participating in workplace than NOT participating in workplace.
She thew him off his game by that answer. I bet Sen Sessions wasn't expecting that answer. That answer sealed the deal for me.
11
If someone is here illegally I would rather they didn't break our employment laws as well. I can't believe that Obama condones breaking our employment laws. I just can't.
13
And I cannot believe the Republicans turn the other cheek when it comes to employing these people!!!
6
ordinary person - don't you want their tax dollars? would you rather have them living in the streets in cardboard boxes? i assure you. lots of people wanting cheap maids and gardeners disagree with you.
4
I'm conservative most of the time. And from what I've seen and learned about Lynch she should be confirmed. She represents an upgrade to the incumbent.
6
I have barn animals who would represent an upgrade to the incumbent.
He has made his bed with the pigs on Wall Street, he has prosecuted state licensed medical marijuana growers, he has appointed for-profit industry stooges like Stacia Hylton at the US Marshals Service and kept Harley Lappin at the Bureau of Prisons for much too long (until the rabbit got a DUI). He should have gotten rid of grandstanding Carmen Ortiz long ago.
He has made his bed with the pigs on Wall Street, he has prosecuted state licensed medical marijuana growers, he has appointed for-profit industry stooges like Stacia Hylton at the US Marshals Service and kept Harley Lappin at the Bureau of Prisons for much too long (until the rabbit got a DUI). He should have gotten rid of grandstanding Carmen Ortiz long ago.
8
Being removed from deportation is not the central issue. It's rewarding 5 million unlawful immigrants with work permits at a time when millions of legal immigrant and citizens can't find full time employment.
Lynch's support of that policy disqualifies her from being AG
Lynch's support of that policy disqualifies her from being AG
34
How would you fix the problem?
2
"How would you fix the problem?"
Deport as many illegal aliens as possible. Let Mexico and central America worry about them.
Deport as many illegal aliens as possible. Let Mexico and central America worry about them.
12
Follow the laws in place and quit inviting legals into the country. Now we have 10+ thousand Syrian 'refugees' that arriving to be settled.
1
Ms. Lynch is going to be in the position of defending Obama's immigration policy against a pending lawsuit. By testifying that Obama's position is reasonable, she indicates she will defend Mr. Obama without indicating that the Republicans were wrong in bringing their suit. That is the correct balance in a confirmation hearing. Score one for Ms. Lynch.
28
No, she should actually state what her position is. If she actually believes that Obama's unilateral immigration action was unconstitutional, then her saying that Obama is "reasonable" in this regard is just plain dishonest politicking. There's nothing commendable about hedging or dishonesty.
12
She didn't lie.
Now, Alberto Gonzales.
He lied, over and over, and lied again.
"I don't recall, Senator."
Now, Alberto Gonzales.
He lied, over and over, and lied again.
"I don't recall, Senator."
9
Another way of looking at it is whether it is an abuse of discretion. Since the A.G. has discretion in this matter and this is not an abuse, it is therefore constitutional. Nothing dishonest about this.
3
"Some Republicans have said Ms. Lynch’s views on the subject will determine their votes...."
Once upon a time in the East, people nominated to fulfill cabinet and other posts were usually evaluated on their ability to do the job, not on their policy views. No longer. Unless it can be demonstrated that an Attorney General nominee has a record of not enforcing laws she doesn't agree with, there are no legitimate grounds for rejecting the nomination other than manifest incompetency.
Once upon a time in the East, people nominated to fulfill cabinet and other posts were usually evaluated on their ability to do the job, not on their policy views. No longer. Unless it can be demonstrated that an Attorney General nominee has a record of not enforcing laws she doesn't agree with, there are no legitimate grounds for rejecting the nomination other than manifest incompetency.
12
Why do Republicans continue to claim the president's actions are amnesty when they are not, either by definition or the actual words in the executive order. It is deferred imposition, not amnesty. It is not a question of enforcement of existing law because all of those who fall under the executive order can still be deported.
22
If the President had stopped at deportation I could agree with you however the granting of workpapers went to far.
8
That is still not amnesty. Amnesty would be a pardon from all laws and the president has not done that. As to workpapers, which workpapers?
5
They are to be given work permits and Social Security numbers, legalizing them to work.
4
The Constitution provides for the Senate to provide its "advice and consent" for certain positions in our government. That does not mean that Republicans get to approve only someone which they would put forward themselves, if they occupied the Oval Office. When will they stop acting like spoiled brats and start acting like mature representatives of the people? I'm starting to believe they don't actually have it in them.
70
What it means is that the senate has to approve of nominees and therefore the president should take their advice and nominate someone they will approve. Its called a check on executive power. If the senate doesn't want to approve a nominee then Obama should find someone they will approve not cry about it especially since he tried to stop Bush nominees when he was a senator. And if the senate whatever reason refuses to nominate anyone thats fine. Of course if your Obama you just declare the senate in recess and appoint whoever you want. Oh wait already tried that and it was declared unconstitutional so its back to demonizing perfectly acceptable behavior.
3
I'm sure that when GWB was president you shared the exact same opinions regarding advise and consent. Immigration is an issue but one of many. The President made it central due to his indifference during his first term addressing the issues. Executive orders can be rescinded as soon as the next President takes office and will be a debate point in 2016.
1
What the Supreme Court decided was you are not in recess just because you say you are. You must be able to pass legislation or approve nominees. The Senate stated and the Supreme accepted that the pro forma sessions with only one Senator present can conduct business by unanimous consent. So without objections, one Senator can pass any bill pending. I bet you did not know that. The Obama administration believed that you had to have a quorum per the constitution -- but the Supremes decided otherwise.
2
I am sure she is qualified. She has made her bones as a prosecutor on the federal level. What bothers me about her and anyone else either party puts forward is the question of enforcement of the nations laws, not following policies that go against our current laws!
If the law is wrong then change it! Don't write policy that over rules the enforcement of the law! We are a nation of laws and the law should be enforced or if society doesn't think it is really applicable anymore or fair then our elected representatives need to either abolish it or re-write it. We now have elected officials who decide what laws are enforced or not enforced. If we need to change it do that, but no one elected official should be able to determine what will or won't be enforced.
And I think the head law enforcement officer of the land should follow federal law and our Constitution, not the policies of either the President or Congress. Ok, she agrees with the President on his amnesty policy, does that mean those laws she will not enforce? What other laws will she decide to overlook? As the AG she can and should advocate for the abolishment, repeal or rewriting of laws, but she should never say she will not enforce what is on the books! NO AG should say that.
If the law is wrong then change it! Don't write policy that over rules the enforcement of the law! We are a nation of laws and the law should be enforced or if society doesn't think it is really applicable anymore or fair then our elected representatives need to either abolish it or re-write it. We now have elected officials who decide what laws are enforced or not enforced. If we need to change it do that, but no one elected official should be able to determine what will or won't be enforced.
And I think the head law enforcement officer of the land should follow federal law and our Constitution, not the policies of either the President or Congress. Ok, she agrees with the President on his amnesty policy, does that mean those laws she will not enforce? What other laws will she decide to overlook? As the AG she can and should advocate for the abolishment, repeal or rewriting of laws, but she should never say she will not enforce what is on the books! NO AG should say that.
16
Rob, you need to take off your rose-colored glasses! Prosecutors at all levels--from the local district attorney to the U.S. Attorney General--have and will always have the latitude to determine where they will spend energy and resources in prosecuting criminals, based on many things, including the level of crime to political philosophy. It is something that simply happens whether you like it or not. I have not always agreed when prosecutors decided to plea bargain or not prosecute a case that I thought needed prosecuting, but I know that this is the way it is. No different than anything else in our society.
7
Thank you, Steve, for injecting some reality into the discussion.
1
Oh please, the Republicans on the committee pretending that a down vote is deliberative is risible; it is forthcoming regardless, as per their anti-Obama platform dictates.
7
So Senator Vitter, who patronized prostitutes outside of Nevada where it is legal, is on the Judiciary Committee? I suppose that does give him unique insight into the legal system.
21
AG Holder is mentioned as a liberal in this article. Have we moved the bar so far to the right in our political lexicon? I usually find the NYT reporting to be spot on and revealing but in this instance the reporters have performed a disservice to their readers.
AG Holder is no more a liberal than Obama is. They may on limited occasions and in snippets of speeches sound liberal but there is almost always that qualifying statement tacking back to moderation or an aphorism about conservatism. They are not liberals in the full throated liberals so this article needs to be edited by someone that knows something about liberalism.
Ramsey Clark as AG was a liberal. His president LBJ was a liberal. Senator Ted Kennedy was a liberal. Lincoln was a liberal. George Washington was a liberal. FDR was a liberal. A liberal is by definition someone that seeks to advance the human condition so that liberty is expanded for those that heretofore did not experience it. It is to provide equal opportunity for those that heretofore have not had access to it. It is to provide justice for those that have been harmed by society.
AG Holder IMO has not advanced freedom, equality, or justice IMO. An African-American as AG does not advance the cause anymore than AG Reno did for women or Alberto Gonzalez did for Hispanics. It is in their actions and their policies that matter.
AG Holder is no more a liberal than Obama is. They may on limited occasions and in snippets of speeches sound liberal but there is almost always that qualifying statement tacking back to moderation or an aphorism about conservatism. They are not liberals in the full throated liberals so this article needs to be edited by someone that knows something about liberalism.
Ramsey Clark as AG was a liberal. His president LBJ was a liberal. Senator Ted Kennedy was a liberal. Lincoln was a liberal. George Washington was a liberal. FDR was a liberal. A liberal is by definition someone that seeks to advance the human condition so that liberty is expanded for those that heretofore did not experience it. It is to provide equal opportunity for those that heretofore have not had access to it. It is to provide justice for those that have been harmed by society.
AG Holder IMO has not advanced freedom, equality, or justice IMO. An African-American as AG does not advance the cause anymore than AG Reno did for women or Alberto Gonzalez did for Hispanics. It is in their actions and their policies that matter.
19
The Republican led Judicial committee dislikes the president and disfavors any of his appointments predicated on their dislike for him. The president, and Eric Holder are all "commies", socialist and should be tried for treason or impeachment. They just can't get over the man's skin color. Loretta Lynch, it seems, is on trial, for having an association with the president. Every question to her is directly or indirectly something the president did that the Republicans opposed...which is about everything.
24
Perhaps Lynch had to say what she said, but I hope she doesn't believe it. Most of her testimony could have been given by any mainstream Republican nominee (if there is such a thing anymore). And it's sad to hear her speak of improved police-community relations when her US Attorney's office won't intervene in the Garner case.
4
I think it wass great what what Ms. Lunch said. Isn't that what Chief Justice Roberts did: Said what he thought they wanted to hear about settled case law and then once in office did exactly the opposite. So Ms. Lynch telling the truth did not help her in any sense, especially when you consider the questioners had already made up their minds NOT to like ANYTHING she said.
2
Seems like you've made up your mind.
It's the usual charade in which members of both parties grandstand for the cameras in a show of principled opposition in order to impress their constituencies. In the meantime the real object of their concern--the special interest groups and the lobbyists who represent them continue to ply their shabby trade behind the scenes. No show of principled opposition there, just money talking.
11
If the GOP would reject Ms Lynch in the final confirmation vote, I would hope Eric Holder stays on for the rest of Obama's term...Because if the GOP defeats her, hard to imagine how anyone could get confirmed...
5
I guess we'll see if the republicans are serious about governance because It would go against their gospel of political failure to confirm Lynch.
Better to stomp on the Constitution than allow a Republican to have any say, right Jonathan?
2
Who is stomping on the Constitution?
More sound and fury from Republicans still casting about for something to replace the Southern Strategy. Charles Grassley and his King of Iowa will go down with Graham, Boehner and McConnell as having spent most of their lives as speed bumps in the road President Obama took to Rushmore.
3
How absolutely predictable, someone being threatened because they dare to differ in party opinion. And we should wonder why our country doesn't work? Sad is an understatement.
7
I think you know better Debbie. The problem is not an attorney general or Obama having a political opinion. It's when they take it upon themselves to ignore our constitution and try to impose their personal opinions on others.
4
@Don and the religious right and by proxy the GOP are not doing the same? Not establishing a national religion is ALSO in the Constitution. Come back when you have done more research on what is actually in the Constitution...
2
And I think you know better Don. Dare I suggest George W. Bush and the years after 9/11?
2
Nominations based on race and sex are both racist and sexist.
To promote a nominee because she is a black female is the same as reserving golf courses for white males. They are either both right or both wrong.
To promote a nominee because she is a black female is the same as reserving golf courses for white males. They are either both right or both wrong.
14
Is it possible that you don't realize how ignorant that sounds?
In this case, of course Ms. Lynch was not nominated "because she is a black female." She is our President's choice for many reasons, which he has articulated eloquently.
But there are many real-life situations in which promoting a qualified candidate who is a member of an unrepresented
In this case, of course Ms. Lynch was not nominated "because she is a black female." She is our President's choice for many reasons, which he has articulated eloquently.
But there are many real-life situations in which promoting a qualified candidate who is a member of an unrepresented
4
Ms. Lynch is an experienced Federal prosecutor who has headed one of the most important U.S. Attorney's offices in the nation. Do you not think this played just the smallest part in her nomination?
Her extensive experience alone qualifies her for nomination. That being said, as Stephen in Texas wrote, seeking to increase the representation of qualified persons of underrepresented groups is not at all wrong-headed, or "racist and sexist," as you put it. I'm afraid that you, and Chief Justice Roberts, are incorrect on this point.
Her extensive experience alone qualifies her for nomination. That being said, as Stephen in Texas wrote, seeking to increase the representation of qualified persons of underrepresented groups is not at all wrong-headed, or "racist and sexist," as you put it. I'm afraid that you, and Chief Justice Roberts, are incorrect on this point.
2
Guess it doesn't matter if she supports the Constitution or not. Notice that is not a concern of yours. How telling.
1
Other than continually whining and complaining, does the GOP actually have any ideas for fixing the immigration system? Or do they just want to use the issue to fire up their (almost all white) base and raise money?
7
They have but you do not want to hear it. The solution is enforcement of the law.
10
If enforcement of the law was their strategy they would have done a much better job when they were in charge. I know facts are a difficult concept but when we look at the illegal immigration numbers under the Bush presidency and compare to the Obama presidency they are significantly lower and deportations are much much higher with Obama. In other words he has done a far better job of enforcement. Why weren't these congressman complaining when Bush was our President.
6
My understanding is that the nation's law enforcement system does not have the resources to round up all illegal immigrants (verifying which immigrants are illegal can be time-consuming) and deport them along with enforcing the many other laws (national, state, and local) that are on the books. Just saying "Enforce the law." is not a very useful strategy unless the resources for enforcing all the immigration laws (along with all the other laws) magically appear.
1
Republicans have a choice. Either they continue with Holder or they get someone new in Lynch. Simply being angry at Pres. Obama will only get them the base case.
10
So Obama has no one else to appoint once Lynch's nomination fails? Get real.
2
I hope the GOP has the guts to vote down her nomination.
14
This is a very opinionated Act , We have to look at the bright side of situations whether it's confirmed or not .. It's the ' American Way " .
1
If any Republicans vote to confirm someone who supports Obama's power grab and disregard for the Constitution then they are as guilty as he is. This is a no-brainer. No votes to confirm if a) Obama keeps the policy or b) the nominee suggests it is acceptable.
12
If Obama was really disregarding the Constitution wouldn't you think he would get impeached now that the GOP controls Congress? It's a strategy the GOP uses not based in reality.
4
That would be letting him and the Democrats off too easy. Although, it's not too late for that action.
1
So far I have not read any report that indicates Lynch would abide by the language of the US Constitution and amendments. Holder had no respect for the law and was completely out of control on any topic. I would not recommend to my senators to vote for lynch unless she promised to abide by the Constitution and amendments and rulings of the Supreme Court.
13
And I'll bet you've read a lot of reports.
3
Perhaps you should have read more widely, and taken time off from watching and listening to Fraud Noise or your favorite hate radio talking head, to actually watch C-Span and the confirmation hearing. A bright, very articulate prosecutor with a record of convictions and successful enforcement of the whole body of Federal statutes, and our Constitution. But it appears U.S. Attorney Lynch's sterling credentials mean nothing to a GOP base that can only see an "uppity black woman". This is not Eric Holder and as a resident of Ms. Lynch's district and as an attorney I know that firsthand.
1
So she's not playing politics. That's good. Unfortunately for her, and for us all, the committee may reject her based on her refusal to tell them what they want to hear about Obama's actions on immigration. Here's hoping their reward will be another 2 years of Holder.
3
"Some Republican senators have said Loretta E. Lynch’s views on the subject will determine how they vote on her nomination for attorney general."
Good. We need an attorney general who will actually uphold the law.
Good. We need an attorney general who will actually uphold the law.
6
Mrs. Lynch is very capable, qualified and eminently suited to the position. My objection to her is only based on her close relationship with Atty Gen Holder and his wife. They have been life long friends and continue to align themselves together, with identical backgrounds. Let's change it up.
How about selecting someone from another area of the country? Someone who has had different life experiences than our current Atty Gen. I would like someone with a fresh, broader viewpoint.
Gender and race are not material - but geography might be a factor.
I feel the same way about the idea of another Bush or Clinton. NO WAY.
How about selecting someone from another area of the country? Someone who has had different life experiences than our current Atty Gen. I would like someone with a fresh, broader viewpoint.
Gender and race are not material - but geography might be a factor.
I feel the same way about the idea of another Bush or Clinton. NO WAY.
5
For the Republican party - the party of Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, and Alberto Gonzales - to accuse Eric Holder of "politicizing the office" is rich.
24
If Republicans choose to block the Lynch nomination or even make a lot of noise in the process, are they playing to the Tea Party base and hoping that by the time the next elections roll around everyone else has forgotten? Are they figuring the African-American vote will go 90+% Democratic so it doesn't matter anyway? Are they figuring that the majority of the 2016 electorate really wants radical conservatism? What's the political calculus? (And perhaps most importantly, what do the Kochs want them to do?)
16
I think many of the commenters have missed the difference between non-prosecution, and actually giving out ID cards and setting up a quasi-legal status without a law authorizing it. The Supreme Court might say yes to non-prosecution, but there's no way they're going to swallow the whole thing.
14
I totally disagree with the President's Executive Order exempting 5 million illegal immigrants from the law - especially after seeing the expensive paperchase my daughter's Swiss fiance has to go through. Nevertheless it is wrong to penalize Ms Lynch for supporting the president who has nominated her. In this contest on separation of powers the Congress is more than able to take it out on Obama directly without delaying Eric Holder's departure.
6
Given the number of Republican extremists on the Senate Judiciary Committee, it seems unlikely that Loretta Lynch (her name may be a portent) will ever get a vote in the full Senate. President Obama's best hope is to persuade Eric Holder to serve for two more years. That would be a just reward for Republican recalcitrance.
9
Congress has had the better part of 30 years to fix, correct, amend, or perfect the their last go at Immigration Reform and have failed to agree and produced nothing. The last effort (SImpson-Mazzoli) had escalating employer sanctions and a national ID card stripped from it.
Congressional inability to solve the problems they created brings us to where we are now. SO, what should the solution look like?
Congressional inability to solve the problems they created brings us to where we are now. SO, what should the solution look like?
16
If the courtesans of big "bidness" don't confirm her Holder will be AG for another two years. Fine with me.
5
Republicans will choose any forum they can to trash Obama no matter how qualified or capable she might be Mr. Schumer said that we are not voting on Mr. Obama's agenda here, but this person for Attorney General. Will republicans ever get off their high horse and view the situation through antiObama glasses? I guess if they ever did this they wouldn't be Republicans.
10
I'm glad Senator Graham has stated he feels the imperative to have a new AG is now. Otherwise, with the strong reaction of those on the judiciary committee, on record as having particularly strong feelings against this Administration--Cruz, Lee, Vitter, and Sessions, a quadrifecta of sorts--she would be a goner.
If the Republican senators want to make good on their pledge to govern, not hamstring the wheels of government, they should get this confirmation dispatched with due haste. If they start holding up appointments for political grandstanding, like they did last term, it will simply signal more of the same ugliness that they displayed during their minority tenure.
If the Republican senators want to make good on their pledge to govern, not hamstring the wheels of government, they should get this confirmation dispatched with due haste. If they start holding up appointments for political grandstanding, like they did last term, it will simply signal more of the same ugliness that they displayed during their minority tenure.
89
So, unless the Republicans automatically agree to an Obama pick for A.G., one of the most important appointments that can be made (save for the Supreme Court), they are not "governing"? Sorry but there are important issues here that need to be explored in a hearing. This is what we do in a democracy, even if you identify strongly with one party. Spouting cliches and Democratic talking points about "obstruction" are what is not helpful.
2
Black and female, what difference does it make? If she is qualified, then she's qualified. Unless of course, she wants to keep the DOJ as a base for leftist, liberal political activism, as with Mr. Holder. I remember reading somewhere that Justice is supposed to be blind. Ms. Lynch could be a good one, but, we'll see.
7
What are the leftist liberal policies that Mr. Holder followed? I've never thought of him as liberal - he was kind of right of center.
1
As a northern moderate, it doesn't exactly seem forward-looking to me for Senators from Texas, Louisiana and Alabama - the last one named for not one but two Confederates - to lay into a black AG nominee with lectures about lawlessness and whatnot. It certainly doesn't seem forward-looking for the GOP as a whole to embrace these troglodyte neo-Confederates if it ever wants to win national elections again.
51
Here we go - the republican governing train leaving the station as quick as it can! Oops - sorry - we seem to have stalled a bit - voting on such an important confirmation as the country's chief legal officer will have to wait until March.
They seriously have no intention of getting anything done.
They seriously have no intention of getting anything done.
8
I am disappointed that she supports Amnesty for people that enter this country illegally. And every time we hand these folks Amnesty even more show up at the back door sneaking in to our country. Of course Loretta E. Lynch has no other choice but to support President Obama.
26
@John H
Yeah, that's only how most Americans got here. (Example: you could starve in Ireland or go to the U.S. Was there a choice?) There certainly aren't that many Native Americans in this country any more.
Yeah, that's only how most Americans got here. (Example: you could starve in Ireland or go to the U.S. Was there a choice?) There certainly aren't that many Native Americans in this country any more.
8
@John H
Maybe John H's parents or great grand parents came illegally from Ireland or Italy; but he is opposed to give the same curtsy to Hispanics; but why? Because they will pollute this 'lily-white' nation of his??
Maybe John H's parents or great grand parents came illegally from Ireland or Italy; but he is opposed to give the same curtsy to Hispanics; but why? Because they will pollute this 'lily-white' nation of his??
Ah, the wailing and gnashing of teeth whenever proof emerges that it really isn't.
1
Mitch McConnell vowed at his first opportunity to block anything President Obama tried to do. This spirit cannot be called "cooperation". If congress can stop the President at each turn, who can set an agenda? Using executive power has been used by former presidents with no complaint for years, and is legal under the constitution, no matter what Grassley and his minions think. It has been oppose, delay, obstruct from 2010 forward.
69
Unfortunately, Mr Obama and the democrats answer to not getting what they want every time is "obstruction." There was never a spirit of compromise. "Elections have consequences." "Go out and win some elections." Terrible to hear from a president, particularly one who wanted to supposedly heal a nation.
Just look at the 529 plan debacle of the past few days. Our president is so far out to lunch to even propose something so polarizing that he knew could never pass. The great divider/class warrior.
Just look at the 529 plan debacle of the past few days. Our president is so far out to lunch to even propose something so polarizing that he knew could never pass. The great divider/class warrior.
3
And of of course President Obama caused all the polarization all by himself, right? Wrong. The polarization started growing in the 1960s and has continued ever since. And do you think Mitch McConnell ever wanted to work with President Obama? Do you think John Boehner ever did?
1
Has Obama's golf game been blamed on this quote from Mitch yet? Seems it's trotted out every time it's necessary to cast blame when things don't go the way they should for the president.
2
Well, she seems to be saying most of the things - if not all - that Republican inquisitors want to hear, and nearly all of her answers start with, "certainly, Senator'. She also defends the NSA wiretapping program besides upholding the 'amnesty' memo that the president issued.
Once she is confirmed, who cares what she said at the hearing? She could justify her changed positions on her shifting paradigms and on her 'evolution' on issues raised during the confirmation session.
Given that we need an AG and no other Democratic nominee will fare any better than she is doing, might as well cut out the theater, confirm her, and move on.
Congratulations, AG Lynch.
Once she is confirmed, who cares what she said at the hearing? She could justify her changed positions on her shifting paradigms and on her 'evolution' on issues raised during the confirmation session.
Given that we need an AG and no other Democratic nominee will fare any better than she is doing, might as well cut out the theater, confirm her, and move on.
Congratulations, AG Lynch.
5
With respect to the question of race...I guess it's not a problem when people of color are shutout of the political process, but when it's pointed out and attempts made to rectify the lack of participation by whole classes of citizens that seems to be a problem...You too ladies...
Sweet logic if your actual intentions are to perpetuate the oppressive hierarchy.
Sweet logic if your actual intentions are to perpetuate the oppressive hierarchy.
4
Hey Graham... how about former US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald? You remember him. He is the guy that had no trouble putting away Democrats or Republicans who were ripping off the taxpayers.
3
Strike 1 - she has been nominated by a democrat
Strike 2 - she is black
Strike 3 - she is an intelligent woman
All things the Republican population of this country hates with an extreme passion.
Strike 2 - she is black
Strike 3 - she is an intelligent woman
All things the Republican population of this country hates with an extreme passion.
21
If the GOP does not vote for her, they need to accept the default position that Eric Holder will continue, maybe even until 2017. Is that what they want?
6
The longer Holder stays, the less chance he may leave without further blemish. He will running out through AG office door.
3
She would have had my vote had she not defended the legality of Obama's ("I don't have the power) illegal Executive action, and, I'm a Republican. All the bleats here about Republicans are as prejudiced as the complaints they have about Republican prejudice. Fact is, opposition to Obama is not knee jerk opposition, it's about a horrible record of failure, favoritism, and ego. And those failures affect the world, not just Republicans or Democrats.
38
Your language--"horrible record of failure, favoritism, and ego"--is prima facie evidence that your oppossition is "knee jerk." How dare a Black man have an ego!
10
C'mon, Sunny 20, what are you thinking? Don't you realize by now if you disagree with any of Obama's policies, you're automatically racist? How much longer does the left have to drum that into your head?
17
@Sunny 20
"Horrible record of failure" like sustained job growth, low unemployment, extraction for foreign wars, low gas prices, health care for those who were denied it before-- all the things that the previous president failed at doing Mr. "Knee Jerk" Sunny 20.
"Horrible record of failure" like sustained job growth, low unemployment, extraction for foreign wars, low gas prices, health care for those who were denied it before-- all the things that the previous president failed at doing Mr. "Knee Jerk" Sunny 20.
8
It's absurd to think any Obama cabinet nominee would distance or disavow him/herself from his policies, no matter how wrong the policies are. Sadly, presidents choose like-minded thinkers to surround them. If I ruled the world, I'd want naysayers, people who would tell me what I might not want to hear. Obama has a litter of yes 'folks", as he likes to call us.
8
That's what being the part of the cabinet is -should be someone to support his policies. Did W have any naysayers in his cabinet?
The first Obama nominee to face the newly minted Republican Senate. Or should I say the first clay pigeon to be launched on the skeet shooting range? Someone yell "Pull!"
5
I'm sorry to say but it sounds like Ms Lynch's nomination is D.O.A. I believe that this Republican committee had already made its collective mind up to reject the President’s first nominee anyway and Ms. Lynch’s position on immigration is just the final nail in the coffin.
6
Let us hope so.
5
Oh, what a dilemma for the GOP! The longer they take to approve President Obama's pick, the longer A. G. Holder stay in office!
1
Hey Democrats, remember Robert Bork, perhaps. Do any of you who are even slightly fair-minded, suggest that she is more qualified than that late, great jurist?
If so, please try to explain.
If so, please try to explain.
10
She's not up for the Supreme Court, she's up for Attorney General.
5
Ah Vince beat me to it-she's been a prosecutor for her entire professional life, including as a United States Attorney, and she's nominated to be Attorney General, not Supreme Court justice.
Just the thoughts of someone who isn't a knee-jerk rightwing partisan.
Just the thoughts of someone who isn't a knee-jerk rightwing partisan.
2
Surely you are not serious. Lynch has a strong history as a prosecutor and is eminently qualified to be our next Attorney General.
Bork has a history of wrong-minded opinions and was not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.
So, you have no point, except perhaps revenge for the Senate's rejection of an unqualified nominee?
Lastly, why would you wish to inflict your revenge on this nominee? Is your need for revenge eternal, still flaming after 25 years or so?
Bork has a history of wrong-minded opinions and was not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.
So, you have no point, except perhaps revenge for the Senate's rejection of an unqualified nominee?
Lastly, why would you wish to inflict your revenge on this nominee? Is your need for revenge eternal, still flaming after 25 years or so?
9
"If not Ms. Lynch, then who?"
Napolitano.
(Judge Andrew, not Janet.)
Napolitano.
(Judge Andrew, not Janet.)
5
The obstruction from the conservative right is just wasteful theatre. Ms. Lynch is obviously very qualified to be the Attorney General for this country and deporting Dreamers will not solve the immigration problem. Confirm her and please move on to some real work like the economy.
31
Yeah, because millions of illegal immigrants- getting free benefits and tax breaks- have absolutely no impact on our economy, right?
36
@DD - undocumented workers have a significant and negative impact on the economy. pushing them into the shadows hurts everyone. Since Congress won't act, it becomes the president's duty to do so. And don't start yelping "unconstitutional" because that is just ignorant Fox News Talking points.
6
oh I guess the democratic talking points that you swallow to the max are the best things for this country, you need a dose of reality come out of the shadows yourself!
5
Republicans will not approve of anyone Obama picks. In fact, Obama could run Edwin Meese and Republicans would not approve. The Republican party of today refuses to work with any Democrat; Republicans of today are very short sighted and can be counted on to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
34
They might actually be that stupid, and they would be very stupid to sink this nomination knowing that Holder, who the Republicans hate even more than Obama, will remain as AG.
4
I'm sure she's outstanding but let's face it. Bareet in SDNY should have gotten it. He's done incredible things: like busted Silver for one and went after Cuomo. He is really deserving of the AG as the first person of Indian descent to occupy that office. Lynch is good but really my choice would have been Bareet
7
You mean Preet Bharara, right?
One thing's for sure...he's not letting political forces obstruct his investigations, that's for sure.
But with Obama that might be the reason why he was overlooked. That plus Ms. Lynch keeps Al Sharpton happy.
One thing's for sure...he's not letting political forces obstruct his investigations, that's for sure.
But with Obama that might be the reason why he was overlooked. That plus Ms. Lynch keeps Al Sharpton happy.
14
I was pretty much with you until you trotted out Bharara's ethnic background as a qualification. Haven't the last six years taught us anything about affirmative action and public office?
1
Do you really think Obama didn't think about race here? Indian - Americans are not considered "suspect" classes. Lynch is. Does that answer your question?
It is difficult to believe that anyone sitting next to a smiling Pat Leahy would be apolitical.
2
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter how qualified she is. It doesn't matter what she's done so far in her career. It doesn't matter what is said during the confirmation hearings.
That's because the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have already made up their minds, for 3 reasons:
1. She was nominated by Barack Obama, and the Republicans don't want him to be able to act at all.
2. She's going to be asked to enforce policies that make the lives of Hispanic immigrant families better.
3. She's black.
Notice none of these were in any way caused by her own choices. And that's the real problem I have with this whole process.
It doesn't matter how qualified she is. It doesn't matter what she's done so far in her career. It doesn't matter what is said during the confirmation hearings.
That's because the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have already made up their minds, for 3 reasons:
1. She was nominated by Barack Obama, and the Republicans don't want him to be able to act at all.
2. She's going to be asked to enforce policies that make the lives of Hispanic immigrant families better.
3. She's black.
Notice none of these were in any way caused by her own choices. And that's the real problem I have with this whole process.
45
It is expected that she will be nominated. Race card does wear on one though.
4
She has already been nominated.
1
My impression is that you have already made up your mind that you would like her confirmed - for the same three reasons: she was nominated by Barack Obama; she is going to enforce policies that make the lives of (illegal) Hispanic immigrant families better; and she is black.
1
As Senator Graham said: if not then Ms. Lynch, then who? Apolitical AG is of course not possible.
Good luck, Ms. Lynch. Hopefully, the confirmation will be completed well before the end of March, 2015.
Good luck, Ms. Lynch. Hopefully, the confirmation will be completed well before the end of March, 2015.
53
The next AG should not base judgment or prosecution based on the color of one's skin. The next AG should under ALL circumstances, believe and follow through on the RULE OF LAW, and that, as President Obama constantly reminds us "everyone has to play by the same rules." That is, everybody but those who are in his favor (like illegal aliens). The next AG should be everything that Holder is not. And that will be good for our country.
22
PV, there aren't enough prosecutors on the planet to prosecute every crime, especially thanks to Republicans who have already cut the budget of the Justice Department. Limited resources lead to prosecutorial discretion and prosecutorial policies. Some crimes merit more attention (and racial crimes are up there for most Americans) and deporting "illegals" who have no criminal background, are working hard and paying taxes now aren't an equal priority with serious financial and personal damage crimes. Do you really want to have the FBI rounding up Chinese boat people, or do you want the Bureau stopping terrorism? You can't have both, except in the world of hypocrisy.
3
Russ, so terrorists don't violate immigration law? How do you know? If enforcement is abandoned or bypassing enforcement is allowed, any law will be weakened.
Hey, she might even prosecute all laws with equal vigor, not just the ones her boss likes.
16
I wish that were so.
But, if she does that, he won't be her boss for very long.
But, if she does that, he won't be her boss for very long.
1
Ms. Lynch possesses the legal requirements to be the next Attorney General. Yet, because Obama nominated her, by the Republicans she does not stand a chance of receiving a fair hearing. On the Senate Committee are Ted Cruz and David Vitter. They have already said no! Republicans have packed the Supreme Court with right wing activists. On Capital Hill, fiercely the reactionaries will seek to shift the seat of America's top law enforcement officer - to the right.
34
Yes, those right wing activists that have so far upheld legally controversial portions of the ACA. Oh, wait...
2
she is in other words a shoe in because she is Obamas lady, the Supreme Court is packed with right wing activists, you are a fool! They allowed Ginsbrug a free pass even though she headed the ACLU, Reagan appointed Kennedy a real staunch right wing activist, Obama gave us Kagan and Sotomayor real run of the mill conservatives, Clinton also gave us Breyer, where do you get your facts from!
Mike,
Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts have swung the court to the right. Often, Kennedy has been the deciding vote that brings about a politically regressive ruling. "A fool?" As the saying goes, when you have no facts, call 'em names." You must be a Fox News veiwer.
Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts have swung the court to the right. Often, Kennedy has been the deciding vote that brings about a politically regressive ruling. "A fool?" As the saying goes, when you have no facts, call 'em names." You must be a Fox News veiwer.
3
Aloha Ms. Lynch,
Congratulations on your nomination. While fielding biased questions designed to help or hurt your journey to become our next AG, will you practice your expertise on the source of the question? Will you help the listening audience experience your ability to find facts while taking steps to expose myths that feed false facts?
To practice what you preach, helps us all - no matter the outcome of your journey.
Congratulations on your nomination. While fielding biased questions designed to help or hurt your journey to become our next AG, will you practice your expertise on the source of the question? Will you help the listening audience experience your ability to find facts while taking steps to expose myths that feed false facts?
To practice what you preach, helps us all - no matter the outcome of your journey.
3
As a former federal criminal prosecutor, I found departing AG Holder to be an unworthy Attorney General who tarnished the office. From the time he was Deputy AG onward through his current tenure, Holder has been a political, self-focused man focused on his own career advancement and interests at the core. Revealing was Holder's comment years back when his reputation was tarnished by the Marc Rich pardon scandal: my time in the limelight has passed (or words to that effect). Making millions a year in private practice at a DC law firm known for its service to massive corporate clients, Holder wanted to get back into the limelight and power- and Obama, in a grave error, appointed Holder as Attorney General. Holder, beholden to - and planning to return to - the private financial elite - as Attorney General kept the DOJ from vigorously investigating and prosecuting the companies, executives and money managers whose fraudulent behavior was a prime factor in the financial crisis. If Lynch simply vigorously and smartly without favor and without bias leads and manages DOJ so that its attorneys investigate and prosecutes criminal wrongdoing wherever the trail may lead, she'll be a great improvement over Holder. Let's see if her actions match her rhetoric.
41
"Attorney General kept the DOJ from vigorously investigating and prosecuting the companies, executives and money managers whose fraudulent behavior was a prime factor in the financial crisis"?
You're right! A MAJOR fault of Holder! But do you really expect a Republican AG would have done any investigating? Bush's AGs were mainly concerned with providing the corporate windfalls you mention--and with undercutting regulation to make the whole financial crisis possible!
And Repubs are trying to eviscerate Dodd-Franks regulations EVEN NOW!
You're right! A MAJOR fault of Holder! But do you really expect a Republican AG would have done any investigating? Bush's AGs were mainly concerned with providing the corporate windfalls you mention--and with undercutting regulation to make the whole financial crisis possible!
And Repubs are trying to eviscerate Dodd-Franks regulations EVEN NOW!
6
As a former federal criminal prosecutor myself, I can attest that the 5 AGs that I have worked under have some form of political agenda: to serve the man who put them in that position. But Holder has never politicized the office in the way that Alberto Gonzalez wrought upon us. His act of politicizing attorney/intern hiring damaged the reputation of the elite AG Honors Program for years. I remember being part of the hiring committee for summer interns and entry level attorneys. Names of qualified candidates being removed by the AG's office without explanation was perplexing. But to later learn the real reason was these candidates were Democratic or liberal leaning was outrageous and nauseating. If Alberto and his denizens could have politicized an elite program, then what could they not do?
We know from past experience these candidates will say almost anything to get confirmed. They should have to undergo a series of polygraph tests before the final confirmation.
6
sorta like the politicians who nominate and defend them
2
She can't possibly be any worse than Holder. Then again, never put it past the Democrat party to nominate candidates who say one thing to get elected and then do a complete 180 when they are in office.
16
And I suppose Republicans candidates are above such shenanigans.
6
Guilty before proven innocent I see.
1
FYI there is no "Democrat" Party.
6
What is her opinion on the trend to suppress voter rights laws currently being passed in conservative states?
3
Unfortunately, that view doesn't matter - the US Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act, which means Ms Lynch would not have the power to do anything about that.
That's why state-level elections matter too! I for one hope the anti-gerrymandering efforts in Ohio get somewhere as well - my vote for Congress basically doesn't matter, because I'm in a district where they carefully squeezed in about 1/5 of all Democrats in the state.
That's why state-level elections matter too! I for one hope the anti-gerrymandering efforts in Ohio get somewhere as well - my vote for Congress basically doesn't matter, because I'm in a district where they carefully squeezed in about 1/5 of all Democrats in the state.
4
Let her face the committee. The opposing party is never going to let any nominee waltz through, but if she does truly use the constitution as her "lodestar" and not political aspirations/debts to guide her, she'll get the job. Both parties, try to slip through yes-people and pawns. Lookin' at you Susan Rice and Harriet Miers.
4
For god's sake, Republicans. She has been a prosecutor her entire life. That should make her your kind of people. You will have a very, very hard time disguising the real reasons you object to her appointment, namely that she is an Obama appointee, she is female, and most of all, she is black. Just for once, try representing the present people of the United States rather than the Confederacy.
110
First of all, I had no idea that Holder was a liberal. Judging from the way that he and Obama went after whistleblowers and leakers, and the carte blanche he gave to bankers for being very successful banksters, I honestly thought that he was just some kind of a banal rubber stamp who could easily become confused.
Now we are supposed to believe that his replacement, who a most importantly is a woman, will be that independent voice of the law which has never before been seen in the office of the Attorney General or has it ever been desired.
Now if we were all born yesterday, we all might buy into this assertion, but we all know that the President's Political Police Force, The FBI, requires a persona dedicated to the whims of whomever sits in the oval office. Otherwise what reason has it to exist?
The Great Issue? The Presidents minimal stand on immigration which was completely within the bailiwick of the Chief Executive. So we can see from the start that no one is playing this straight, and the coming dog and pony show will once again not be worth attending.
Everything in this process is probably destined to play to the lowest common denominator, and only the most ill informed among us will take it seriously.
Now we are supposed to believe that his replacement, who a most importantly is a woman, will be that independent voice of the law which has never before been seen in the office of the Attorney General or has it ever been desired.
Now if we were all born yesterday, we all might buy into this assertion, but we all know that the President's Political Police Force, The FBI, requires a persona dedicated to the whims of whomever sits in the oval office. Otherwise what reason has it to exist?
The Great Issue? The Presidents minimal stand on immigration which was completely within the bailiwick of the Chief Executive. So we can see from the start that no one is playing this straight, and the coming dog and pony show will once again not be worth attending.
Everything in this process is probably destined to play to the lowest common denominator, and only the most ill informed among us will take it seriously.
5
You wrote, "most importantly is a woman." Do you really believe that is the most important thing?
3
Good opening question from Chuck Grassley: "Ms. Lynch, will you join us as we ask for the impeachment of the president?" I wonder if Benghazi and the ACA will come up. Depends what questions are provided by the Koch brothers and Roger Ailes, I guess.
10
I thought the Big O was going to use Executive Action to bypass Congress?
3
No, he is just writing a memo.
Republican Grassley promises a thorough airing. That means with this GOPer led bunch she doesn't stand a chance since they are against anything this particular president proposes.
9
"Besides Mr. Grassley, Republican committee members include Senators Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and David Vitter of Louisiana, all of whom have expressed outrage over the president’s actions on immigration and his exercise of executive power in general. Mr. Vitter has already said he will oppose Ms. Lynch’s nomination, and Mr. Sessions has said he has strong reservations."
Good luck with that group.
Good luck with that group.
91
A ship of fools
7
She looks like a good choice. The gnawing question to m e that doesn't seem to whet the reporters' curiosity is where was General Holder when the Paris march took place.
15
Question: In what universe would Eric Holder be considered an "outspoken liberal"?
Answer: Only one in which Fox is considered an actual source of news rather than disinformation.
Answer: Only one in which Fox is considered an actual source of news rather than disinformation.
187
I'm sure Holder would disagree. On both "outspoken" and "liberal."
4
Naw, going to Ferguson with the reverend and opening a federal investigation into a shooting absent even the grand jury's finding wouldn't make him in the least radical or politically tendentious, would it? (And the riots and fires started thereafter.)
13
Hopefully Ms. Lynch will be willing to do what Holder refused to do, take a look at war crimes and Wall Street bankers.
117
...and the counter-productive "War on Drugs."
3
If she pursued these crooks, the Republicans would claim that she is "politicizing" the office.
6
Ms. Lynch could possibly be apolitical, but I highly doubt that will last with the most mendacious and completely, totally and utterly most political administration in the history of the republic. Politics trumps all in Obama-Land. Good luck with that tack for Ms. Lynch (whom I have nothing against), and to all of us. We've seen how totally partisan Eric Holder has been, so let's just say I'm skeptical. Just saying: Ughhhh.
30
Don't worry, you can expect a really fair hearing with guys like Jeff Sessions and Ted Cruz on the panel. Guys like that are well known for ignoring politics, race and gender. President Obama couldn't get his appointments filled with Dems in charge because of Republican filibusters, so now she'll get fair treatment? They might well have held the hearings last week in Iowa.
48
SDF, When you write, "the most mendacious and completely, totally and utterly most political administration in the history of the republic", I presume that you are talking about the Republican Congress? Most Americans would heartily agree with you.
89
Republican extremists, of course, think AG Holder is political when he dares to enforce the laws on our books, especially ones that pertain to race.
12
I don't know very much about Loretta E. Lynch, but the little I've read suggests she is qualified (although, I also don't doubt "race" had something to do with her being given the nod among other qualified people; giving various ethnic groups seats or offices is pretty much taken for granted now, even if it remains unstated and a terrible policy). I'm also pretty cynical about what nominees say they believe, as they know what to say in order to get confirmed (I have actually been told as much by a couple of politicians, not that there was any doubt). That they will do so is pretty much taken for granted and accepted by the Senate in all but rare cases. This is all a generalization, of course, and she could be an exception, but watching politics has made me too cynical to expect otherwise.
14
Why is it so hard to see people from ethnic groups get top posts? Whites have been given these prominent positions since this country began, isn't it time for some diversity? Why does this bother you?
44
I assume if you were in same position, you would speak your mind regardless of the consequences to your career? Maybe that's why you 'watch' ploitics and are not in the 'game'.
1
And how is her defense of the President's action on immigration pandering to people in power? She has already proved herself an exception to your "rule" and I wonder why you didn't see that. Maybe you're too focused on accusing her of being an "affirmative action" nominee to have noticed that facts that don't agree with your world view. As someone's who's admittedly ignorant about the nominee, you're awfully forward with your opinions.
2
We should wonder whether any of the Committee members will be brave enough to ask Ms. Lynch her personal views of the matter involving the release of Ali Saleh Al-Marri and determine if his release were connected to negotiations known terrorists, i.e. Qatar.
It's known that the DOJ was heavily involved, and it is now past time for all Americans to connect the dots from the GITMO releases and the more recent SuperMax turnout - and decide WHY? the Brotherhood, et al, is receiving such favorable treatment?
It's known that the DOJ was heavily involved, and it is now past time for all Americans to connect the dots from the GITMO releases and the more recent SuperMax turnout - and decide WHY? the Brotherhood, et al, is receiving such favorable treatment?
8
Much like Ms. Yellen who faced a different committee last year, I believe Ms. Lynch will prove herself very capable for the job. Time for Mr. Holder to exit stage left and fade into obscure academia.
4
…obscure academia? No way. He will join (or rejoin) a white shoe law firm, and with speaking engagements, earn well into seven figures.
9
Or Old Mexico.
1
Loretta Lynch appears to be well qualified for the position of Attorney General.
The Republicans main complaint will be that she is not John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzalez or some other intellectual lightweight in the pocket of the right wing wing.
The Republicans main complaint will be that she is not John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzalez or some other intellectual lightweight in the pocket of the right wing wing.
172
It depends if you want someone who will uphold and defend the constitution or the would be Obama dictatorship.
9
Please detail all the many ways that the Obama administration is a dictatorship. I'll check back later. Thank you.
8
Ask Lynch about ONEDoJ the database that shares information between DoJ and every local police and sheriff. DoJ has limited disclosure about the ONEDoJ system, they haven't followed the Privacy Act, 5 USC 552a. DoJ hasn't released all the information about ONEDoJ that is required by subsection e and Congress hasn't had the chance to make comments that it is supposed to.
5
Lynch will likely become a capable attorney general in contrast to the indisputable incompetence and racism exhibited by Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has set the bar very low as to the intellect and integrity required of the attorney general.
35
Racism? The racism of his opponents is obvious. Their claim that it is Holder who is racist shows their ignorance and hatred are inextricably intertwined. Black people cannot be held responsible for the US' racism, by definition.
8
AG is a management job too.
Ask Lynch what she thinks should happen to DoJ lawyers who misrepresent the law and withhold evidence in court. Right now nothing at all happens to them. DoJ has an Office of Professional Conduct but all they deal with is sexual harassment and employees looking at porno on-line. A DoJ lawyer lied a lot, really substantially, even misquoting the Federal Register, in my lawsuit against DoJ but I couldn't find a forum to address what I think is straight fraud and obstruction of justice.
Ask Lynch what she thinks should happen to DoJ lawyers who misrepresent the law and withhold evidence in court. Right now nothing at all happens to them. DoJ has an Office of Professional Conduct but all they deal with is sexual harassment and employees looking at porno on-line. A DoJ lawyer lied a lot, really substantially, even misquoting the Federal Register, in my lawsuit against DoJ but I couldn't find a forum to address what I think is straight fraud and obstruction of justice.
10
In the name, Loretta E. Lynch, what does the letter "E" stand for?
Elizabeth. Google is your friend.
6
Elizabeth. Google is your friend.
4
Good to see she acknowledges that she will be "apolitical," thereby acknowledging that Holder was political.
43
Um, no. That's not how it works.
5
No it doesn't.
2
Yes, she seems to be acknowledging that there needs to be less divisiveness; although her comments on illegals' right to work were hardly consistent with that.
2
Loretta Lynch's fitness to command the Justice Department is not the issue here. Republicans on the Committee on the Judiciary are lined up to indict President Obama's six years in office with Ms. Lynch as the defendant. The Tea Party's attack dog, Sen. Cruz, will employ his fixation against executive over-reach to seed the ground for the weeds that will spring up, choking off the vetting process. Although the committee promised to decide the nomination on its merits, anyone can see that it is poised to hold Eric Holder's "sins" of commission or omission against Ms. Lynch. The GOP/TP wants a template for this president's Cabinet nominations and is quite determined to exercise its muscle and its meanness in the pursuit of its goal of attaching anarchy to the final two years of his term. The Republicans were given a previous gift by apathetic American voters in November. They're not going to throw away their shining chance to misuse it. Ms. Lynch, I fear, will be their first move on the board.
8
The U.S. needs an attorney. Let's hope that this doesn't disintegrate into an opportunity for the new Republican congress to exercise a vendetta against the president over immigration reform. When presented with a qualified and capable candidate it is the duty of the congress to approve the nominee posthaste. This is especially important given that the president is jockeying to close Gitmo for good. That move will require a lot of fine-toothed legal analysis coming from the executive level. There's extra pressure to have a new AG in place in order that the president can fulfill his promise to restore the US's standing as a country that respects due process, the Geneva conventions against torture and the international standards set by the UN and ICC.
2
I would describe myself as generally conservative when it comes to legal issues. I fully support the confirmation of Loretta Lynch at the earliest possible date. She has proven herself to be an excellent prosecutor who is free of bias and preconceived notions. Her record speaks for itself in terms of her aggressively going after lawbreakers of all political stripes and backgrounds. Most importantly, she does not use the Justice Department as a stage on which to promote political positions or personal opinions. I sincerely hope the Senate will confirm her in an expeditious manner and let her get to work.
6
I find intriguing that a Pastor's daughter, taught the forgiveness of the church and Jesus would become a career Persecutor.
Let's assume that Ms. Lynch gets confirmed and that it "only" takes the Senate a couple of months of grandstanding and delay. That leaves her less than two years in office before the next administration almost certain replaces her.
What does she do then? How risky is this for her career, given that she is not one of the elite bankers doing a rotation through government, before going back to banking?
What does she do then? How risky is this for her career, given that she is not one of the elite bankers doing a rotation through government, before going back to banking?
1
This article makes absolutely no mention of Holder's non-prosecution of the big banks for blatantly criminal behavior, such as slap on the wrist that was given to HSBC for massive money laundering for drug cartels, and Lynch's apparent support for the Too Big To Jail policy. The International Business Times is now reporting that, in a list of media appearances and interviews that she needed to provide to the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of the confirmation process, Lynch failed to list a 2012 CBS interview in which she waved off critics of the HSBS deal as "shortsighted".
http://www.ibtimes.com/attorney-general-nominee-loretta-lynch-omitted-hs...
Is there any reason to think that DOJ kids'-glove handling of Wall Street will change under Lynch?
http://www.ibtimes.com/attorney-general-nominee-loretta-lynch-omitted-hs...
Is there any reason to think that DOJ kids'-glove handling of Wall Street will change under Lynch?
16
The banking regulation as are most regulatory regulations and laws are written with the interest of the regulated in mind and frequently by their surrogates. I have yet to hear anyone specify what laws the banks or wall street have broken. If there were a reasonably winnable prosecutable case to be brought, it would have been brought. Bad results do not equate to illegality.
2
“We need an attorney general,” Mr. Graham said. “If not her, who?”
With around 1000 currently appointed federal judges in the US and god only knows how many truly competent and honestly "apolitical" lawyers, indeed. WHO? Gosh, I guess we just don't anywhere to turn for an answer. BULL.
With around 1000 currently appointed federal judges in the US and god only knows how many truly competent and honestly "apolitical" lawyers, indeed. WHO? Gosh, I guess we just don't anywhere to turn for an answer. BULL.
4
We have Eric Holder or Ms. Lynch. What evidence do you have that Ms. Lynch is not truly competent and when have we ever had an "apolitical" Attorney General that is as apolitical as Ms. Lynch.
7
I can’t help thinking that if America was inundated with immigrants who would compete with members of our professional classes (doctors, lawyers, social workers, accountants, executives, etc.) that things would never have come to a similar pass. Actually, I’m sure of it, because it hasn’t happened; it has been made impossible, legally impossible. Why is it legally impossible? Because the law is enforced.