An acquaintance has asked – maybe challenged – me to explain my position that Loretta Lynch should not be confirmed as Attorney General.
Let me make this as clear as possible.
First, there is the following listout from Senator Ted Cruz\’s explanation of why he will not vote to confirm (please read it keeping in mind that this is no endorsement of Senator Cruz, whom I am no fan of):
When asked how she would be different from Eric Holder-the most partisan attorney general our nation has ever seen-she could identify no meaningful way she would differ from him.
When asked whether she would defend President Obama\’s illegal executive amnesty-which Obama himself acknowledged, 22 times, he had no authority to undertake and which a federal court has just enjoined as unlawful-she responded affirmatively, saying that she thought the Administration\’s contrived legal justification was “reasonable.”
When asked the limits of “prosecutorial discretion,” the dubious theory President Obama has put forth to justify his executive amnesty, she could give none.
When asked if it would allow the President to extend amnesty to all 12 million people here illegally … she refused to answer.
When asked who has “more right to a job,” a U.S. citizen or a person here illegally, she responded, “I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that\’s shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here.”
When asked if a subsequent President could use “prosecutorial discretion” to order the Treasury Secretary to no longer collect any income taxes above 25 percent … she refused to answer.
When asked if a subsequent President could use the same theory to exempt the State of Texas from every single federal labor law and environmental law … she refused to answer.
These are extreme, radical positions.
When asked if she agreed with the Holder Justice Department\’s view (rejected unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court) that the government could place a GPS sensor on the car of every American, without probable cause … she refused to answer.
When asked if she agreed with the Holder Justice Department\’s view (also rejected unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court) that the First Amendment gives no protection whatsoever to a church\’s or synagogue\’s choice of pastor or rabbi … she refused to answer.
When asked at her hearing if she believed the federal government could employ a drone to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, if that citizen posed no imminent threat … she refused to answer.
And when asked if she would be willing to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS\’s targeting of citizens for their political views-a prosecutor who was not a major Obama donor, as is the current lawyer leading the “investigation” … she refused to answer.
Add to the above that Ms. Lynch has subsequently refused to tell us if she would investigate Hillary Clinton\’s scrubbing of her emails while Secretary Of State; something that cries out – makes that screams out – for an investigation.
Now, what is left?
Well, I have read and heard from several sources that she would be the first Black woman who held this position…and that is why her confirmation vote is being held up.
In other words, the argument these people – and there are plenty of them – apparently are making is, “she won\’t tell you what she will do about one major issue after another, she does not distinguish between the rights of legal citizens and illegals who, according to the laws she would be sworn to uphold, should not even be here in the first place….but she is Black and she is female, therefore vote for her or you\’re against women and a racist.”
The answer to that argument, in a word, is….no.
I hope this explains my position.
