After spending years trying to get rid of him, the Republicans are so happy that Eric Holder is stepping down as Attorney General that they are refusing to confirm his replacement Loretta Lynch, which will give Holder another six months on the job. You would think that after holding him in contempt of Congress and repeatedly calling for his forced resignation that they would help him out the door.
And then it gets even more ironic. Rudi Giuliani — who recently questioned whether Obama loves America — has sent a letter to fellow Republicans, urging them to defer to Obama and confirm Lynch.
Should not liberals be even against Loretta Lynch? I mean even from liberal ideology?
It’s not about being for or against Lynch. It’s about bringing her nomination to the floor so people can actually vote one way or the other. The GOP is blocking this from happening until the Democrats agree to approve a human trafficking bill that includes anti-abortion requirements. It’s simple legislative blackmail.
From Politico, “What is beneath the decorum and dignity of the United States Senate — I would say to the senator from Illinois — is for him to come to this floor and use that imagery and suggest that racist tactics are being employed to delay Ms. Lynch’s confirmation vote,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “Such inflammatory rhetoric has no place in this body and serves no purpose other than to further divide us.”
Indeed. Inflammatory rhetoric and divisive language in the U.S. Senate… I, for one, am just shocked.
If there was a real likelihood that Lynch would be confirmed by the full senate, then the threat of not bringing her up for confirmation would be something other than an empty threat. As things stand now, though, the GOP seems to have painted itself into a corner and may as well go home and start campaigning in earnest for the 2016 election… where they can spend time talking about how successful they’ve been at limiting the Obama presidency to only two terms and how they will by-damn bring this period of recovery and relative peace and prosperity to the end it so richly deserves.
MICHAEL, ok once (and if) the vote comes to floor, I will see how many liberals will vote against her.
Hassan, even if/when it comes to the floor, it’s not about voting for or against her. The traditional role in these votes is advice and consent. These are appointed positions, and the role of the Senate is supposed to be to object to unqualified nominees. It’s not about whether or not you agree with that person. If Lynch is qualified, and from all appearances she is highly qualified, she should be confirmed.
MICHAEL, so you mean to say democrats never voted against a nominee (or filibustered) who was qualified despite disagreeing with politics of that person?
Hassan, I would turn that question back at you. What nominee have the Democrats objected to, who was qualified?
The only ones I can think of that the Democrats really objected to were a couple of Supreme Court justices. And IMHO they were unqualified.
There is a difference between voting against or filibustering a nominee over objections regarding that person’s qualifications or views, and filibustering a nominee to gain concessions on totally unrelated legislation.
Iron Knee, it was genuine question, if there are just few people been rejected, that means nominees have been really good, or the parties did not care much. I am kind of alarmed that the people who are being nominated to serve constitution are not concerned on defending it. Protecting and upholding constitution and law of land should not be up to political views of those executing it. If we as citizens are expected to follow the law, then one passing and implementing it must follow the law before anyone else.