By Arnold Ahlert On April 24, 2015 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
In a move destined to leave a bitter taste in the mouths of many Americans, the GOP-controlled Senate confirmed [2] Loretta Lynch, currently U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, as United States Attorney General. The 56-43 vote occurred after a delay of more than five months, and Lynch was put over the top when 10 Republicans broke ranks with their colleagues to confirm Eric Holder’s successor. Those Republicans are Kelly Ayotte (NH), Orrin Hatch (UT), Lindsey Graham (SC), Susan Collins (ME), Jeff Flake (AZ), Mark Kirk (IL), Rob Portman (OH), Thad Cochran (MS), Ron Johnson (WI) and Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (KY). “Today, the Senate finally confirmed Loretta Lynch to be America’s next Attorney General — and America will be better off for it,” said [3] President Obama in a statement.
Hardly. As Lynch made painfully clear during her pre-confirmation hearings, she is more than prepared to kick the Constitution to the curb in pursuit of Obama’s agenda, especially with regard to illegal immigration.
There were several legitimate reasons not to confirm her. During questioning [4] by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Lynch made it clear she believes the “right and the obligation to work is shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here.” Lynch also refused [5] to answer Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) question regarding whether is it constitutional for the federal government to take out an American citizen on U.S. soil with a drone strike, absent an imminent threat.
Lynch also opposes [6] voter ID laws because they ostensibly disenfranchise voters. That position puts her squarely at odds with a 2008 Supreme Court decision[7] that such laws did not place an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, as a well as a 2013 decision [8] vacating Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act that required states to get “pre-clearance” from the Dept. of Justice prior to changing their voting laws, due to historic racism. Like Holder, Lynch also views law enforcement through the prism of race, insisting [9] in 2000 that “the onus is on law enforcement because we are the ones who have taken the oath to protect and to serve the people of this city. And we are the ones who have the ability to change from within.” A year later she derided New York City’s epic crime drop and the police force that precipitated it. “While crime is down, there is a large part of our community that still does not feel safe,” she said. “And that means that law enforcement has not done its job, no matter what the numbers say.”
-go to links
No comments:
Post a Comment