Loretta Lynch : it’s come to this
Yesterday at Loretta Lynch’s AG nomination hearing, she answered a question from Sen. Jeff Sessions this way:
“Senator, I believe the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here,” Lynch said when asked by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) who has a greater right to work: Illegal aliens, or lawful immigrants and American citizens?
“Certainly, if someone is here””regardless of status””I would prefer that they be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace,” Lynch said.
Sessions opposes Lynch’s nomination for that and because she appears okay with Obama’s overreach on amnesty. Mitch McConnell had once said that a condition of approval of Obama’s nomination should hinge on the person’s opposing Obama’s immigration amnesty, so there’s a good chance (but hardly a certainty) that he will join Sessions.
However, I doubt there will be enough votes to block Lynch’s nomination, although there’s little question in my mind that every single Republican—and many Democrats—should be opposing her. As Sessions said, “President Obama’s executive amnesty represents one of the most breathtaking exertions of executive power in the history of this country.”
But when I read about Lynch’s testimony yesterday it occurred to me (and not for the first time, either) that what would have been shocking just a few short years ago, before the Obama administration, is now run-of-the-mill and commonplace. Unfortunately.
One could argue, I suppose, that not confirming Lynch won’t really do much good, because Eric Holder—who holds the same views on immigration, or worse—will just stay in place. And Obama would not want to nominate a subsequent AG candidate who opposed him on this, of course, so any further nominees would share the same views. Therefore, what good will opposing Lynch accomplish?
That makes a certain amount of practical sense. But some things just should not stand. We’ve had six years of a lawless, completely partisan and divisive Attorney General. Although we will almost undoubtedly have two more years of it, someone who testified as Lynch did should never be confirmed by Congress if the rule of law and the Constitution have any meaning or power left.
[NOTE: More here.]
[NOTE II: Of course, if Lynch were somehow to not get confirmed, you know what the charges against the Republicans would be: obstructionist, racist, and sexist.]
[NOTE III: And let me get the trivia out of the way: whenever I see the name “Loretta Lynch” I think “Loretta Lynn.”]
After this, any Senator who votes to approve Lynch is basically voting to end the rule of law. And they know it.
“the right and obligation to work”
Where is this right and this duty found in the law, Miss Would-Be AG?
“Right to work” is a familiar phrase, used to describe states that allow people to work without joining a union and paying union dues as a condition of employment. And “obligation to work,” is a complete fiction in 2015 USA, probably just a throwaway line to counterbalance this new right she’s slyly promoting for illegals. Empty feel-good phrasing to promote a leftist agenda.
The Whatsits just watched the wonderful movie “Coal Miner’s Daughter” again the other night, and I am having exactly the same problem with Loretta Lynch’s name.
I BELIEVE:
The Great Green Arkleseizure is the creator of the universe, as claimed by adherents of the faith on planet Viltvodle VI. The Jatravartids of this faith believe that the Universe was sneezed out the Great Green Arkleseizure’s nose
so it must be so…
AMartel:Where is this right and this duty found in the law, Miss Would-Be AG?
ARTICLE 118….
i said to read the soviet constitution…
but did anyone? probably not…
ARTICLE 118: Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance With its quantity and quality.
the equal pay amendment is to create ARTICLE 122
the right to be equal for foreigners is ARTICLE 123 Equality of rights of citizens of the U.S.S.R., irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law
while the separation of church and state is NOT in the US constition… they just follow ARTICLE 124…
I watched some of the hearings and was amazed by how forthright Ms. Lynch was. She had apparently not been coached on how to dissemble on such questions.
Her answers show how a prog’s mind works. They see nothing unusual about letting illegal immigrants work, even when it creates job losses among legal citizens. Their world view is upside down to ours. But we know that. So, why are we surprised when we see it on display?
Neo says things that would have shocked us a few years ago are now “run-of-the-mill and commonplace. Unfortunately.”
Which is why we never get back that which we surrendered or had snatched away without rejoinder. Never.
The slippery slope is looong. Unfortunately.
“i said to read the soviet constitution…
but did anyone? probably not…” Artfldgr
Since all leftist progressives are closet communists, that Lynch advocates (perhaps unknowingly) aspects of the Soviet constitution is not really a surprise Art. In fact, it’s a given that anyone Obama nominates to the AG is either knowingly or unknowingly, a closet Marxist.
A word of unasked for advice offered as “constructive’ criticism; You might find that your links and insights would have a more receptive audience if you could contain your reactive disdain when others do not acknowledge the worth of your comments.
Recognition and acknowledgement are certainly gratifying but when a need becomes a demand, the fault lies within us rather than in others. Your reactive disdain is the result of that unexamined need and a failure to appreciate that people hear and see what they are ready to see and hear.
“Physician, first heal thyself” is of far more benefit both to ourselves and others, than demanding that they listen to what we have to say.
There’d be something wrong if her name didn’t make you think of Loretta Lynn. Lynch herself probably thinks of Loretta Lynn whenever she hears her own name.
As soon as I saw that clip yesterday, I shot an email off to Sen. Murphy of CT with a link to the clip. I asked him if I (or he) were to go Mexico illegally and demand to work how the Mexican government would respond? I also stated that this is essentially giving up our sovereignty. I asked him to vote against her on the senate floor vote. I also added a line of snark that I did not expect he would do that as all Democrats seem more concerned about power and being part of the tribe, than the general welfare of the country.
I checked the little box that said, “no response needed” as I didn’t what to bother reading the blather that his staff would send back.
Yes, and if by some miracle she IS voted down, the press will call it a “lynching”. Brace yourself for it.
Neo asks what good opposing Lynch would do. The answer is that sometimes, you must fight the good fight, even if you know you won’t make any difference.
When a teenager says, “You know, it’s not hard to buy pot in town, and I’m going to get it anyway, so you might as well buy it for me and let me smoke it in the house”, do you agree? Maybe you do, but I wouldn’t!
One could argue, I suppose, that not confirming Lynch won’t really do much good, because Eric Holder–who holds the same views on immigration, or worse–will just stay in place.
Yes, but there is something particularly bad and wrong associated with voting for Lynch: it is an explicit endorsement of a continuation of the lawlessness carried out by Holder on behalf of King Barack. A vote for Lynch capitulates to rule-by-whim and sanctions lawlessness.
But when I read about Lynch’s testimony yesterday it occurred to me (and not for the first time, either) that what would have been shocking just a few short years ago, before the Obama administration, is now run-of-the-mill and commonplace. Unfortunately.
Yeah, very unfortunately. King Barack said he’d “fundamentally change” this country and such no-longer-shocking things are a measure of how far we’ve come.
Well, Hatch is for her, and so apparently are Grahamnesty and the aptly-named Flake. The ha-ha Senator, Franken, opened his questions with “How was lunch”?
These people are idiots. Who could accept as valid and enlightening testimony a commitment to “be myself”?
Once again, we’re done, and done for. Being ruled by the stupids and the evils.
Her logic reminds me of arguments I’ve heard from leftists on other topics. Against late-term abortion? We’ll just end up supporting all of those unwanted kids. Against Obama’s 529 tax plan? We’ll just end up supporting those people who won’t get to go to college. And now if we’re against amnesty, green cards, and drivers licenses for illegals, we’ll end up supporting those poor people who want to work but can’t.
Keep Holder at his desk. Don’t set him free to go out and make millions at some crony job that he’s already got set up. The Devil you know …
Her last name is what bothers me. It makes me nervous when I see a prosecutor named “Lynch”.
(And some of the accounts of her work as prosecutor bother me, too.)
Incidentally, she married Stephen Hargrove in 2007, so she could have an innocuous last name in her public life, as well as her personal life, if she wanted to.
AMartel:
She can’t be worse than Eric the Red. She has (or had) ovaries!
Kidding aside, her Senate hearing shows that we might as well do away with the Senate’s Advise & Consent function. Nominees should just get an hour of prime time to dish out platitudes and obfuscation directly to the public. We could have Candy Crowley or some other person from the MSM ask BS questions.
The Senate as intermediary serves as a barrier only when in Democratic hands.
AMartel was starting on an interesting path regarding Lynch’s statement (emphasis mine), “I believe the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country . . . .”
Her statement shows just what a statist Lynch really is.
In America, no one is obligated to work. You may not be entitled to anything if you don’t work-but for the largesse of the American people through Congress and their state and local governments. But, so long as you demand neither food nor shelter, nor anything else, you are not obligated to work.
Apparently Lynch would prosecute people for not working if she were given the chance.
I had the exact same reaction as neo. Why aren’t people in a complete uproar over this nominee and this unconstitutional Executive Order/Memo?
My only answer is the old frog boiled in a pot of water analogy. The public has just been conditioned on this stuff. Hey, as long as the Super Bowl gets played and we can eat Doritos.
physics guy, way to go! I’m churning out e-mails like snow coming out of a snowblower. So much to do, so little time.
Cornhead:
“as long as the Super Bowl gets played and we can eat Doritos.”
Bread and circuses, circuses and bread.
I agree with AMartel, vote her down and any other AG wannabe put forward. Holder is a pinata that congress needs to keep whacking and hope it bursts. Anyone bho nominates will be just as foul.
It needs to be noted who votes to confirm her. I expect Graham and McCain to defect.
Cornhead, 10:26 pm — “It needs to be noted who votes to confirm her. I expect Graham and McCain to defect.”
TYPO ALERT.
You meant to type “defecate”, didn’t you?
Pingback:Da Tech Guy Blog » Blog Archive » Coaching Loretta