Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, is making the rounds on Capitol Hill in advance of her upcoming Senate confirmation hearing. With the GOP now in control of the Senate, she will need some Republican support. But with the elimination of the filibuster in this context, only a few Republican defectors will be required.
They probably will be easy to find. Lindsey Graham, true to his role as the Arlen Specter of the South, has already expressed his predisposition to vote for confirming Lynch. More surprisingly, perhaps, so too has Marco Rubio.
I have two questions for Senator Rubio. First, would he vote for Lynch if he believed that she will be essentially indistinguishable from Eric Holder as Attorney General? Second, if not, what is his basis for believing that Lynch will be different from Holder?
However, I don’t expect Rubio to take my word for it. He should ask Lynch to identify three areas of substance in which she disagrees with Holder over his performance as Attorney General. I doubt she honestly can name one.
But even if she disagrees with Holder on more than one issue, Lynch still should not be confirmed if she agrees with Holder and Obama on the legality of executive amnesty for illegal immigrants. A Senator who votes to confirm an Attorney General on board with this outrageous usurpation of congressional power cannot be deemed a serious opponent of the usurpation.
Obama almost surely will not nominate an Attorney General who expresses disagreement with him on this issue, which he regards as central to his legacy. But if Republicans are serious, they must respond by denying him the ability to confirm an Attorney General. That’s part of the price Obama should pay.
It will not do to have an Attorney General who supports executive lawlessness.
When Lynch met today with David Vitter, the Louisiana Senator asked her about executive amnesty. Vitter reported, “I didn’t get any straight answers during our meeting today, and I’m not convinced Ms. Lynch will put any stop to it.”
Is Marco Rubio convinced that Lynch will try put a stop to executive amnesty? If so, on what basis? (According to this report, she has said she believes the executive action on immigration is legally sound).
If not, why would he even consider voting to confirm Lynch?