Eric Holder to step down

[TH3]

The world you guys live in....

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The world you guys live in....

Which world is that?

[B-Man]

Most Republicans oppose Lynch because she refused to identify even a hypothetical limit to President Obama’s ability to claim that prosecutorial discretion allows him to stop enforcing laws (that’s the theory behind the executive orders he issued conferring the benefits of legal immigration on illegal immigrants).

McConnell wasn’t going to delay her confirmation vote on that basis, though. Instead, he made that move only when Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) tried to force Republicans to strip Hyde Amendment language out of a human trafficking bill even though he doesn’t have the votes to amend the bill. The Hyde Amendment language, which bans taxpayer funding of abortion. has been included in appropriations bills for decades. Democrats are “hoping the race card trumps the abortion card”

Durbin pulls race card on Senate Republicans

FTA:

He wants unfair? We can show him unfair. Earlier, House Republicans put together a nice infographic showing how unfair modern human slavery can be: (at Link)

Human flesh is a billion dollar industry; cartels are importing and exporting people, and men, women, and children are being sexually assaulted in exchange for cash—and Lynch having to wait for her nomination vote is unfair.

 

Being in the minority may just make Democrats jump the shark when it comes to playing the race card, because this is getting ridiculous.

 

You go ahead and keep rolling with that “unfairness” narrative, Dick. Those 20 million slaves can wait their turn, right?

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

So Republicans are holding up the attorney general vote because the are holding up a friggin human trafficking bill? Huh? They want to stop a law that will help stop human trafficking so they can use it as a hobbyhorse for their anti-abortion crusade? Unreal

[keepthefaith]

So Republicans are holding up the attorney general vote because the are holding up a friggin human trafficking bill? Huh? They want to stop a law that will help stop human trafficking so they can use it as a hobbyhorse for their anti-abortion crusade? Unreal

Have to agree with you somewhat on this. It's politics once again. The other problem IMO is that Mrs. Lynch has no business being the next Attorney General due to her position on the illegal immigrant issue which is evidence that she like Holder will continue to use the office to push Obama's political agenda.

[B-Man]

Don’t Confirm Loretta Lynch

by Rich Lowry

 

An unanswerable question hangs over the nomination of Loretta Lynch for attorney general: Is Republican opposition to her more racist or sexist?

As an African-American woman, Lynch represents a gloriously double-barreled opportunity to accuse Republicans of sub-rosa hatreds.

 

The political benefit of what feminists call intersectionality — membership in two or more historically oppressed groups — is not having to choose which accusation of bias to make.

One day, it can be racism; the next it can be sexism. Or, different people can make different charges of an -ism on the same day. The possibilities to mix and match are endless.

 

Consider how Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin went to the Senate floor on Wednesday to effectively accuse Republicans of racism in the nomination fight, even though Hillary Clinton had tweeted on Monday that it is sexism and the head of Lynch’s sorority has said it is both. Synergy!

 

For his part, Durbin went straight to a Rosa Parks metaphor — because getting humiliated in segregation-era Montgomery, Alabama, is just like being a high-powered lawyer whose confirmation vote has been delayed in the Senate. “Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman nominated to be attorney general,” he said, “is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar.”

 

The Senate calendar is a bus? If the NAACP ever gives an award for Best Strained Metaphor in the Cause of Calling Someone a Racist, Durbin should be a top nominee.

 

All of this is transparently in bad faith. Durbin may be many things, but he is not stupid enough to believe that Republicans oppose Lynch because she’s a black woman.

Did Durbin vote against the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state because she’s a black woman? On his own stilted terms, he wanted to relegate Rice to drinking from the segregated water fountain of failed secretary of state nominations, and used the snarling police dog of his “nay” vote to try to do it. It’s hard to believe this could still happen in 2005 America, but it almost did.

The sleight of hand of Lynch’s proponents is to pretend that her nomination is uncontroversial. Durbin says there is no “substantive reason to stop this nomination.” In a segment contrasting the swift confirmation of new Secretary of Defense Ash Carter with the treatment of Lynch, featuring side-by-side photos of the pair (Carter is a white male — get it?), MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said the opposition to her is “inexplicable” on the merits.

This is demonstrably false. As all the Republicans opposing her nomination make plain, the issue is her belief that President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty is lawful.

This isn’t a mere matter of policy or personal preference. It implicates her view of the constitutional order that she will be sworn to uphold. Whether she thinks the executive branch can in effect write laws on its own is a threshold question. Her answer in the affirmative should be disqualifying, no matter how impressive her career has otherwise been, or how historic her confirmation would be.

On the merits, when should Republicans bring her up for a vote — now delayed because Democrats are filibustering a sex-trafficking bill? Never. When should they confirm her? Never.

The Senate shouldn’t confirm any attorney general nominee, from whatever party, of whatever race, ethnicity or gender identification, who believes the president can rewrite the nation’s laws at will.

It doesn’t matter if the nominee graduated at the top of his or her class at Harvard Law School, or barely scraped by at the University of La Verne College of Law.

If the self-styled world’s greatest deliberative body can’t enforce this basic standard, and protect its most elementary constitutional prerogative, who will?

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/dont-confirm-loretta-lynch-116210.html#ixzz3UqdlgFg2

.

 

 

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

Don’t Confirm Loretta Lynch

by Rich Lowry

 

An unanswerable question hangs over the nomination of Loretta Lynch for attorney general: Is Republican opposition to her more racist or sexist?

As an African-American woman, Lynch represents a gloriously double-barreled opportunity to accuse Republicans of sub-rosa hatreds.

 

The political benefit of what feminists call intersectionality — membership in two or more historically oppressed groups — is not having to choose which accusation of bias to make.

 

One day, it can be racism; the next it can be sexism. Or, different people can make different charges of an -ism on the same day. The possibilities to mix and match are endless.

 

Consider how Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin went to the Senate floor on Wednesday to effectively accuse Republicans of racism in the nomination fight, even though Hillary Clinton had tweeted on Monday that it is sexism and the head of Lynch’s sorority has said it is both. Synergy!

 

For his part, Durbin went straight to a Rosa Parks metaphor — because getting humiliated in segregation-era Montgomery, Alabama, is just like being a high-powered lawyer whose confirmation vote has been delayed in the Senate. “Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman nominated to be attorney general,” he said, “is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar.”

 

The Senate calendar is a bus? If the NAACP ever gives an award for Best Strained Metaphor in the Cause of Calling Someone a Racist, Durbin should be a top nominee.

 

All of this is transparently in bad faith. Durbin may be many things, but he is not stupid enough to believe that Republicans oppose Lynch because she’s a black woman.

Did Durbin vote against the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state because she’s a black woman? On his own stilted terms, he wanted to relegate Rice to drinking from the segregated water fountain of failed secretary of state nominations, and used the snarling police dog of his “nay” vote to try to do it. It’s hard to believe this could still happen in 2005 America, but it almost did.

The sleight of hand of Lynch’s proponents is to pretend that her nomination is uncontroversial. Durbin says there is no “substantive reason to stop this nomination.” In a segment contrasting the swift confirmation of new Secretary of Defense Ash Carter with the treatment of Lynch, featuring side-by-side photos of the pair (Carter is a white male — get it?), MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said the opposition to her is “inexplicable” on the merits.

This is demonstrably false. As all the Republicans opposing her nomination make plain, the issue is her belief that President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty is lawful.

This isn’t a mere matter of policy or personal preference. It implicates her view of the constitutional order that she will be sworn to uphold. Whether she thinks the executive branch can in effect write laws on its own is a threshold question. Her answer in the affirmative should be disqualifying, no matter how impressive her career has otherwise been, or how historic her confirmation would be.

On the merits, when should Republicans bring her up for a vote — now delayed because Democrats are filibustering a sex-trafficking bill? Never. When should they confirm her? Never.

The Senate shouldn’t confirm any attorney general nominee, from whatever party, of whatever race, ethnicity or gender identification, who believes the president can rewrite the nation’s laws at will.

It doesn’t matter if the nominee graduated at the top of his or her class at Harvard Law School, or barely scraped by at the University of La Verne College of Law.

If the self-styled world’s greatest deliberative body can’t enforce this basic standard, and protect its most elementary constitutional prerogative, who will?

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/dont-confirm-loretta-lynch-116210.html#ixzz3UqdlgFg2

 

 

 

Partisanship has killed this country.

[B-Man]

 

 

Partisanship has killed this country.

 

 

The Senate shouldn’t confirm any attorney general nominee, from whatever party, of whatever race, ethnicity or gender identification, who believes the president can rewrite the nation’s laws at will.

[DC Tom]

 

 

The Senate shouldn’t confirm any attorney general nominee, from whatever party, of whatever race, ethnicity or gender identification, who believes the president can rewrite the nation’s laws at will.

 

And the Democrats make it partisan.

 

For any given non-partisan position, one or both parties turns it into a partisan issue.

[Dante]

 

 

Partisanship has killed this country.

I wish they would partner to uphold the Constitution like they all swore to then we would be alright. Not to say we wouldn't problems but we wouldn't be going down the path of darkness we are now. We have become unmoored from our history and the Constitution.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Dante

[TakeYouToTasker]

I wish they would partner to uphold the Constitution like they all swore to then we would be alright. Not to say we wouldn't problems but we wouldn't be going down the path of darkness we are now. We have become unmoored from our history and the Constitution.

Which Constitutional interpretation is yours? With this, I take it you stand in opposition to the Louisiana Purchase?

[Dante]

Which Constitutional interpretation is yours? With this, I take it you stand in opposition to the Louisiana Purchase?

I don't know. It's been a long time since I have read anything on the Louisiana Purchase. Probably since I was at school and that's a long time ago. So I don't know how it relates but I'm sure your going to let me know.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Dante

[Chef Jim]

I don't know. It's been a long time since I have read anything on the Louisiana Purchase. Probably since I was at school and that's a long time ago. So I don't know how it relates but I'm sure your going to let me know.

 

No he'll just point down at you from his high horse and mock you.

[Dante]

 

No he'll just point down at you from his high horse and mock you.

Damn. It's going to be just like high school again. My self esteem had just finally returned.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Dante

[TakeYouToTasker]

I don't know. It's been a long time since I have read anything on the Louisiana Purchase. Probably since I was at school and that's a long time ago. So I don't know how it relates but I'm sure your going to let me know.

Thomas Jefferson exercised extra-Constitutional powers in order to enact the Purchase.

 

My point was that unless you take on an absolute Origionalist stance (which is fine, by the way), then you're simply drawing an arbitrary line in regards to those executive actions, in conflict with the Constitution, which you like and those which you don't.

 

 

No he'll just point down at you from his high horse and mock you.

And you just don't like having it pointed out when you're mis-or-un informed.

[Chef Jim]

 

 

And you just don't like having it pointed out when you're mis-or-un informed.

 

Oh I have no problem. As a matter of fact it's a great way to learn. However condescending a-holes can pound sand.

[Dante]

Thomas Jefferson exercised extra-Constitutional powers in order to enact the Purchase.

 

My point was that unless you take on an absolute Origionalist stance (which is fine, by the way), then you're simply drawing an arbitrary line in regards to those executive actions, in conflict with the Constitution, which you like and those which you don't.

 

And you just don't like having it pointed out when you're mis-or-un informed.

I guess there have been exceptional situations which called for executive action. But it's obvious that allowed once it's a slippery slope to what we have now. It's used as a blunt object for one person to get what he wants. No more separation of power.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Oh I have no problem. As a matter of fact it's a great way to learn. However condescending a-holes can pound sand.

Nah, you just don't like having it pointed out when you've formed opinons based on information you don't have.

 

I've never seen you exhibit any other behavior within that scope, and that's OK, just so long as you admit to it.

I guess there have been exceptional situations which called for executive action. But it's obvious that allowed once it's a slippery slope to what we have now. It's used as a blunt object for one person to get what he wants. No more separation of power.

It's always been used that way.

 

I happen to be an origionalist, so my position is that all extra-Constitutional executive action, regardless of whether or not I find the outcome favorable to my personal politics, is a bad thing. When it comes to government, the means are more important than the ends, else freedom is impossible.

Edited March 19, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Chef Jim]

Nah, you just don't like having it pointed out when you've formed opinons based on information you don't have.

 

I've never seen you exhibit any other behavior within that scope, and that's OK, just so long as you admit to it.

 

Nah, it's all in the delivery.

[Dante]

 

 

I happen to be an origionalist, so my position is that all extra-Constitutional executive action, regardless of whether or not I find the outcome favorable to my personal politics, is a bad thing. When it comes to government, the means are more important than the ends, else freedom is impossible.

I agree. Congress is there for a reason. If something is that important, get them all out of bed and go sort whatever it is out.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I agree. Congress is there for a reason. If something is that important, get them all out of bed and go sort whatever it is out.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer me.

 

Thank you.

[B-Man]

Video: McCain rips Durbin for “totally inappropriate” comments on Lynch

 

It takes John McCain a minute or so to really heat up in this blistering five-minute response to Dick Durbin, but it’s well worth the wait. Durbin yesterday accused Republicans of pushing Loretta Lynch to “the back of the bus” for her confirmation vote, after Mitch McConnell refused to schedule it while Democrats filibustered the human-trafficking bill. “Perhaps,” McCain said as he pounded the podium, “my colleagues — and the Senator from Illinois in particular — need to be reminded of their own record when it comes to the treatment of African-American women” who had confirmation votes scheduled in the Senate. (Video at link)

 

Janice Rodgers Brown waited 685 days for her confirmation to the 4th District Court of Appeals, McCain points out — after Durbin himself filibustered her confirmation vote twice. “I would never suggest, even with veiled rhetoric,” McCain angrily continued, “that Judge Rodgers Brown’s race was the reason for the Senator from Illinois’ opposition to her nomination.” Thrusting his finger in Durbin’s direction, McCain said with a quaver in his voice, “And I say to my colleague, that he should extend that same courtesy to me and my colleagues.”

 

What makes this a particularly demagogic and hypocritical argument is that most of the delay on Lynch didn’t come from Republicans. It was Democrats, under leadership from Harry Reid and Dick Durbin himself, who punted on Lynch when they had the chance to approve her themselves:

 

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) took the hint and implied that the delay for Lynch came from racial animus rather than Democratic obstruction of a widely supported bill. Lynch, Durbin declared, was being “asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar.”

All of this is sheer nonsense. It’s demagoguery of the worst kind, especially

since the first choice to put off Lynch’s nomination came from Senate Democratic leadership, in which Durbin ranks second. They chose to delay Lynch’s nomination to use up the remaining legislative calendar to pass what became known as the

“cromnibus” bill,

which allowed Democrats to retain control over most of the rest of the FY2015 budget, even though they had just lost a national election, and Republicans had won control of both chambers of Congress.

Durbin should look in the mirror before making comparisons to Rosa Parks and implying racial animosity where none exists.

 

 

It’s a fine rant from McCain, and a reminder of just how rank the hypocrisy and demagoguery has become from Democrats in the Senate.

 

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/19/video-mccain-rips-durbin-for-totally-inappropriate-comments-on-lynch/

 

.

Edited March 20, 2015 by B-Man

[B-Man]

Holder in Overtime as Lynch Nomination Delayed.

 

 

JOHN MCCAIN ON LORETTA LYNCH: ‘No Republican should vote for her confirmation.’

 

 

 

 

 

Dems trafficking in cynicism

 

The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 enjoyed unanimous bipartisan support when it was passed out of committee with the sponsorship of Senators Cornyn (R, TX) and Klobuchar (D, MN). Senator Klobuchar’s operative principle is “keep your head down” and it has served her well so far.

 

Nevertheless, something funny happened on the way to passage of the bill in the Senate. As the Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel explains: Democrats were suddenly shocked, shocked to discover language in the bill that upholds a prohibition against the federal funding of abortions. Strassel explains:

Yes, it is language that has been in law for 37 years and yes, it was in the bill all along, and yes,

Democrats had voted for it unanimously in committee, and yes they had voted for it unanimously last year in an appropriations bill.

But Minority Leader Harry Reid needed a reason to balk, and the abortion language had the side benefit of allowing Democrats to revive the Republican “war on women.” They filibustered.

 

 

 

The Washington Post goes into the details in its editorial “Democrats are the new party of no.”

 

 

 

Democrats in Washington, DC are tying up both a human trafficking bill and the confirmation of Loretta Lynch.

The Senate Democrats’ behavior in this fight has removed all doubt whatsoever about their motives in this regard. The fight here is not about expanding the legality of abortion or access to abortion. It is solely and exclusively about providing more money for abortions, which can only have one inevitable result: more abortions.

 

Bill Clinton once declared that the goal of Democrats should be to make abortions “safe, legal and rare.” The Democrats’ war against regulations designed to prevent another Kermit Gosnell indicates that they never really meant the “safe” part. And now, by voluntarily putting the entire business of the Senate on hold because they wish to do away with the Hyde Amendment, they have indicated that they never meant “rare” either. Really, what the Senate Democrats want and have always wanted is for abortions to be “legal, frequent, and free.”

 

Their position on abortion is completely outside the American mainstream. The media prefers to pose gotcha questions to Republican candidates about whether they support abortions in the case of rape and incest because they know this drives a wedge between Republican base voters and the general electorate. Almost never do they ask Democrats if they support taxpayer funding of abortion.

 

http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/21/moloch-must-appeased/

Edited March 21, 2015 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

Holder in Overtime as Lynch Nomination Delayed.

 

 

JOHN MCCAIN ON LORETTA LYNCH:

 

 

 

 

 

Dems trafficking in cynicism

 

The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 enjoyed unanimous bipartisan support when it was passed out of committee with the sponsorship of Senators Cornyn (R, TX) and Klobuchar (D, MN). Senator Klobuchar’s operative principle is “keep your head down” and it has served her well so far.

 

Nevertheless, something funny happened on the way to passage of the bill in the Senate. As the Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel explains: Democrats were suddenly shocked, shocked to discover language in the bill that upholds a prohibition against the federal funding of abortions. Strassel explains:

 

 

Yes, it is language that has been in law for 37 years and yes, it was in the bill all along, and yes, Democrats had voted for it unanimously in committee, and yes they had voted for it unanimously last year in an appropriations bill. But Minority Leader Harry Reid needed a reason to balk, and the abortion language had the side benefit of allowing Democrats to revive the Republican “war on women.” They filibustered.

 

 

 

The Washington Post goes into the details in its editorial “Democrats are the new party of no.”

 

 

 

 

http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/21/moloch-must-appeased/

The minority party is ALWAYS the "party of 'no'." It's the only power they have.

[Keukasmallies]

Holder, step down?...can he get any lower?