- Clarice Feldman provides perspective on Lynch nomination.
- Grassley shines
The Loretta Lynch Race Game (American Thinker)
“We are at a crossroads between tyranny and constitutional government and the role of attorney general is critical to getting us back on the right track. “
“The Justice Department was once viewed as an apolitical institution that rose above political infighting and maintained a principled approach to the interpretation of the Constitution, particularly in deference to the separation of powers. In recent years, it has become both overly antagonistic and litigious with regard to the exercise of well-established legislative powers.”
As usual, Ms. Feldman writes an excellent piece providing insight into the issues surrounding the Loretta Lynch nomination. Thoughtful readers likely do not need further such information to recognize that opposition to Ms. Lynch’s confirmation is based on the very real probability that she will at least continue the Obama administration’s unprecedented assault on the Constitution and this nation’s entire system of government, particularly the principle of separation of powers.
The piece destroys the “racist” allegations the administration and the left consistently hauls out whenever its lawless and unconstitutional activities are exposed.
Of particular interest to readers might be the link Feldman provides to the questioning of Loretta Lynch in Senate confirmation hearings. Senator Grassley’s interrogatories are particularly interesting and to the Senator’s credit. In his questioning Grassley addresses a wide range of issues in which the Holder justice Department has distorted or disregarded laws, Constitutional provisions, and established legal precedents. One excerpt suggests that Loretta Lynch is virtually certain to continue and even expand the Holder misuse of the DOJ”:
(Sen Grassley to L. Lynch) ” 20. Follow-up to Question 2: I asked you whether you would continue the Department’s policy of filing complaints against States for passing pro-enforcement immigration laws. You answered that you would “continue the Department’s efforts to work closely with . . . state and local law enforcement partners to ensure the national security and public safety are our top priorities.” The problem is the Department’s policy is the exact opposite. The Department has not made efforts to work with state or local law enforcement or jurisdictions, but on the contrary, it has punished states for passing pro- enforcement immigration laws, and rewarded states and communities for not cooperating with ICE. So, given your previous answer, it appears you support the department’s lack of effort in working with local law enforcement and communities. Or, will you discontinue the practice of suing states who pass pro-enforcement immigration laws?
” RESPONSE (Lynch) : Each individual situation would have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. If confirmed as Attorney General, I would continue to support the federal government’s primary role in developing immigration policy. I would attempt, however, to support negotiations with states and localities in the first instance, rather than litigation, if it appears that a conflict may emerge. “
Much of the Judiciary committee hearings are of equal interest and provide the detail and accuracy few “news” accounts do or even attempt to.
That any Republican Senator, or would be GOP presidential nominee would support Loretta Lynch’s appointment to the office of Attorney General is unthinkable. A full reading of Feldman’s piece and the transcript of the Judiciary Committee hearing would explain why.
DLH
