The current Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, is an unabashed advocate of pro-black racial preference who does not include whites or Asian-Americans when he refers to "my people" – i.e., those particular Americans whose interests he most aggressively asserts and defends in his leadership of the Justice Department.
Holder has announced his resignation (effective upon confirmation of a replacement), and President Obama has just nominated another black-leftist attorney, Loretta Lynch of New York City, to succeed and emulate Holder. Obama plainly expects Ms. Lynch to continue Holder's administration of federal law enforcement with an emphatic bias towards the interests of black Americans under the divisive doctrines of affirmative action, disparate impact, and 21st century reparations for the racial wrongs of the nineteenth century.
Although Ms. Lynch's embrace of Holder's race-based agenda is cosmetically muted under the guise of her relatively non-controversial tenure as United States Attorney in New York City, no one should be deceived by this disingenuous political camouflage. Lynch has the strong backing and endorsement of not only the tendentious Mr. Holder, but also the ultra-radical racial agitator, Al Sharpton, who was directly engaged in the political consultations leading to Lynch's selection.
In the wake of his overwhelming rejection in the just concluded congressional elections, Obama has rejected any notion of conciliation or compromise, but has instead decided to "double-down" in pushing ahead with the very policies and plans that the electorate so emphatically refuted. There is little reason to believe that Obama would deviate from his unapologetic recalcitrance in choosing a moderate or conciliatory nominee for Attorney General. On the contrary, it is evident that he is in comfortable accord with the confrontational attitudes of Holder, Sharpton, and others of their ilk in his choice of a suitable leftist to administer U.S. law enforcement for the final two years of his destructive administration.
The Obama administration hopes to avoid detailed scrutiny of Ms. Lynch's background and legal philosophy by portraying her as an entirely respectable, "non-controversial" choice who should be quickly confirmed in the forthcoming "lame duck" session of Congress, while Obama's Democrats still cling to control of the Senate and its Judiciary Committee. Obama and Holder know that if they cannot rush Ms. Lynch through an abbreviated and pro forma confirmation process in the lame duck Senate, a serious and intensive confirmation process awaits her when the Republicans assert control of the Senate in January, 2015.
Obama's media allies, Democratic senators, and at least one "useful idiot" on the Republican side have already begun painting Ms. Lynch with the false colors of respectability, with a view to forcing a speedy and ill-informed "Kumbaya confirmation." Various news stories have already described Lynch, without providing any supporting evidence, as a "popular prosecutor" who has "built a solid reputation" during her tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Easter District of New York. This is feckless nonsense.
Federal U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the President, and their largely bureaucratic position rarely involves the kind of visibility or public engagement that makes them either "popular" or unpopular. There is thus no reason for describing Loretta Lynch as a "popular prosecutor" other than to lend support to the Administration's disingenuous efforts to portray her as moderate and respectable, when in fact she has earned the support of racialist agitators like Sharpton.
As to Ms. Lynch's supposedly "solid reputation," there is no reason to ascribe the slightest significance to this throw-away assertion. Although stories making this claim provide no genuine evidence or data to support it, it is most likely based upon statements of support from New York lawyers and political figures – people who have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, by cultivating the approval or gratitude of a powerful U.S. Attorney and her even more powerful backers in the White House and at Main Justice. In short, the ritualistic and boilerplate assertions of Ms. Lynch's purportedly solid reputation as a "tough but fair" prosecutor are utterly worthless.
The critical issue is not whether Lynch has the pro forma, self-interested support of New York lawyers and political figures, but whether she is likely to continue the utterly disastrous and racially divisive policies and practices of the Obama-Holder Justice Department. Among other things, her disturbing statements endorsing Holder's race-based approach to law enforcement, and the suspect circumstances of her selection – i.e., the apparent imprimatur of Holder and Sharpton – indicates that she will adhere closely to the Holder Line if confirmed as Attorney General. Indeed, Sharpton himself has stated, "I think Loretta Lynch certainly satisfies all of us that she will continue in the same vein that Eric Holder had began." - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2014/11/10/nbc-hails-obamas-historic-choice-attorney-general-touts-sharpton#sthash.dk3WtrFX.dpuf
The arguments made by Obama's media allies urging swift and submissive confirmation of Ms. Lynch are beyond hilarious in their extreme absurdity and illogic. An article in the New Republic by a so-called "fellow" at the leftist Yale Information Society Project named Sam Kleiner, for example, offers the following conclusory incoherence: "The Obama administration has extended an olive branch to the Senate Republicans by choosing someone whose independence and apolitical judgment are beyond reproach." See http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120214/attorney-general-loretta-lynch-republicans-question-obamas-pick.
"Beyond reproach?" Who does he think he's talking about, Caesar's wife?
Kleiner's flippantly partisan article assumes that Lynch will somehow be "independent" because, unlike several other persons mentioned as possible nominees for Attorney General, she did not have "experience in the White House or at Main Justice." This illogical contention is patently flawed on several levels.
First, countless leftist Democrats who "lack experience in the White House or at Main Justice" would be perfectly ready and willing to dance on the puppet strings of Obama and his White House gang if given the position of Attorney General. The law firms and non-profit legal groups of America are filled with senior liberal-Democrat attorneys who would love nothing more than to slavishly implement the dictates of Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and John Podesta if named Attorney General. An Attorney General's lack of inner circle experience provides absolutely no assurance, or even any likelihood, of so-called "independence" from the President's political policies and directives. Indeed, Lynch's elevation from the comparative obscurity of her pedestrian U.S. Attorney position to the Corner Office at Main Justice renders her all the more likely to do the bidding of those who elevated her.
Secondly, Ms. Lynch in fact enjoyed extensive access to the Justice Department's inner circles when Holder appointed her as the Chairwoman of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys, which advises the Attorney General on legal policy issues. So not only does Lynch, contrary to Kleiner's misleading assertions, have high-level experience at Main Justice; she is also heavily beholden and linked to Attorney General Holder. More importantly, it is apparent that she has been advising him on the very divisive and unconstitutional policies which have made Holder a national byword for lawlessness in the Attorney General's office. To promptly confirm a known disciple of the man whose reckless and discriminatory policies have made him anathema to the American public – Holder's approval rating as Attorney General is a pathetic 24% according to a Rasmussen poll – would be a betrayal of both the Constitution, the rule of law, and the expressed wishes of the voters who emphatically rejected Obama's policies in the recent elections.
Notwithstanding all this, Democrat and media partisans, and at least one Republican political Quisling, have been calling for the rubber-stamp confirmation of Ms. Lynch in the forthcoming lame duck session of the Senate. Inasmuch as the lame duck Senate was just unceremoniously repudiated by the electorate, however, elementary notions of responsive and prudent government would place the responsibility for evaluating the suitability of such an important nomination upon the accountable new Senate, rather than the unaccountable old one.
Almost on cue, however, the invertebrate Republican senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, blurted out a signal of premature surrender on the Lynch nomination even before the ink was dry on her nomination papers. With as much sober consideration as a teenage girl squealing "OMG, awesome," on seeing a new star on "The Voice," Graham reportedly volunteered that Lynch "seems to be a solid choice," is qualified to be Attorney General, and that he has no problems with confirming her in the abbreviated lame duck session.
Graham's irresponsible remarks confirm once again why the routine re-election of unprincipled appeasement-oriented incumbents like him makes meaningful conservative reform in Congress so difficult. There is absolutely no valid reason for a Republican senator to preemptively concede the confirmation of a suspect Obama nominee for a crucial post like Attorney General before the review of her background has even begun, let alone before the Judiciary Committee has conducted thorough hearings on the nomination. Graham is evidently so anxious to curry favor with the liberal media and political establishment – now that he is safely re-elected and beyond the reach of insurgent conservatives – that he is willing to preempt the scrutiny that is required for any important cabinet nominees, let alone one who promises to perpetuate the destructive policies of an Eric Holder, with the smiling approval of Al Sharpton.
Those who advocate a quick, pro forma confirmation of Ms. Lynch insist that she is indisputably well-qualified to be Attorney General solely because she has served as a relatively uncontroversial U.S. Attorney for about six years. This is pure nonsense. There are approximately 93 U.S. Attorneys, and it is a safe bet that most of them could be described as respectable, "well-regarded," and "tough but fair" – the same meaningless endorsements bestowed upon Ms. Lynch by the same beholden attorneys, colleagues, and fellow Harvard Law School Network cronies who would bestow them on almost any U.S. Attorney in their incestuous professional and political circle.
None of these boilerplate encomiums provide any meaningful evidence that a given U.S. Attorney is qualified to be Attorney General – especially at a time when the tyrannical conduct of the President and the current Attorney General have undermined the integrity of constitutional governance and the rule of law.
Having served as a senior Senate Judiciary Committee Counsel during the Reagan and Bush 41 years, SR is deeply familiar with the Senate's vetting and confirmation process for Presidential nominees. The vetting of U.S. Attorneys is generally cursory and pro forma, owing to the fact that these officials are generally confined to straightforward legal enforcement operations, rather than matters of politics, policy, or sensitive constitutional interpretation. Thus, the fact that Ms. Lynch has twice been confirmed as a U.S.A. without controversy says very little about her ability to satisfy the quite different and far more exacting standards that apply to the confirmation of an Attorney General.
A close, skeptical, and thorough vetting of the Lynch nomination is even more critical than usual because the Obama Administration, aided and abetted by the Holder Justice Department, has flouted and undermined the U.S. Constitution with a hubris unmatched in modern history. In particular, Obama has flagrantly usurped and violated the legislative power expressly assigned to Congress in Art. I of the Constitution; he has both declined to enforce or defend duly enacted laws, even while purporting to impose laws and amendments to laws that Congress never enacted. A prime example, of course, is Obama's arrogant insistence that he will unilaterally alter U.S. law to "legalize" the status of millions of illegal aliens, in direct contravention of the laws passed by Congress.
Given these realities, it is imperative that the next Attorney General have a strong mastery of constitutional law, and a commitment to defending the Constitution's integrity even when the President's policies and politics press in the other direction.
There is no indication in Ms. Lynch's unremarkable experience as a U.S. Attorney that she has dealt extensively with difficult issues of constitutional law, let alone seminal separation of powers issues like that posed by Obama's proposed usurpation of congressional authority over immigration and deportation. Perhaps she does possess a level of constitutional mastery that is not evident on the face of her credentials, but that can only be determined by a thorough vetting of her background and probing interrogation in a full hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Such a hearing must also require Ms. Lynch to declare whether she supports the constitutionality of Obama's proposed unilateral amnesty fiat, as Senators Cruz and Lee have properly insisted.
Finally, the Lynch advocates' ultimate trump card is to gush breathlessly that she would be the first black woman Attorney General, and that only racist Republicans would oppose such an inspirational breakthrough by denying her instantaneous confirmation by the lame duck Senate. This tiresome exploitation of vestigial white-male guilt provides no rational basis whatsoever for according preferential treatment to black female nominees; it is nothing more than an argument for pro-black and pro-female discrimination in the guise of obsolete racial and gender justice platitudes.
We have now had a black Attorney General (Mr.Holder) for nearly six years (early 2009 to the present). We recently had a woman Attorney General, Janet Reno, for eight years (1993-2001), and an Hispanic AG for three years (2005-2007). In short, a racial minority or a woman has served as Attorney General during 17 of the past 22 years.
Under these circumstances, the appointment of a black female to this post hardly constitutes some kind of novel or historical breakthrough for blacks or for women. This is especially apparent at a time when a black President is already surrounded by a powerful coterie of influential black women such as primary Presidential Counselor Valerie Jarrett, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and the increasingly political First Lady, Michelle Obama. Against this revealing reality – which most people in politics or media are too timid to notice, let alone mention – the appointment of yet another black woman to the President's inner circle of power represents a reinforcement of the status quo, rather than a vindication for the underrepresented.