Ms. Lynch has extensive experience both as a private practitioner and as a U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said Johnson. According to all reports and evidence, she has performed her duties in those positions capably and in a professional manner. Although I share the concerns many of my colleagues have expressed over portions of her testimony during confirmation hearings, elections matter and the president has the right to select members of his cabinet. As a result, I voted to confirm Ms. Lynch as attorney general. Ron Johnson
Well, I guess I’ll be sitting out his next election. Jerk! Time for Feingold to swoop back in. Aarrggghhh!
What about your oath of officer, Mr. Johnson?
Does it mean nothing to you?
Someone who has openly stated that the President is above the rule of law is A DOMESTIC ENEMY OF THE US CONSTITUTION, FROM WHOM YOU SWORE TO PROTECT THIS CONSTITUTION AND NATION.
Did you mean the oath, or are you assuming that the checks and balances written into the Constitution were just some old dead white guys being racist?
And the F***ing Senate has a right to confirm who they wish. What's more, you are supposed to be representing *YOUR* constituents, not the Interests of the President.
3. The President Not Entitled to His Choice of Subordinates
There is a prudential guideline that, in the absence of disqualifying circumstances, the Senate should defer to the presidents choice of high executive-branch officials. There is a sound rationale for this guideline: Under the Constitution, all executive power is vested in the president. It is his power and his subordinates wield it only at his pleasure even if they have been confirmed by the Senate. A prudential guideline is not, however, a legal rule, much less a constitutional obligation. If a senator treated this prudential guideline as if it were a requirement, this would effectively nullify the Constitutions advice-and-consent mandate that the Senate provide meaningful review of the presidents nominees thus violating the senators oath to uphold the Constitution.
A president who is violating the Constitution is not owed any deference, much less deference in the selection of a nominee to help him violate the Constitution. A president is not entitled to deference for a nominee who is disqualified as is a nominee who testifies that, if confirmed, she will undermine the Constitution. Finally, the Senates power to veto nominations is not just a check on the nominee. It is a check on the executive branch. If a president is violating the Constitution, a senator who has taken an oath to support the Constitution has an obligation to use the power over confirmations to pressure the president to comply with the Constitution. Consequently, President Obama is not entitled to deference, because he is violating the Constitution; and his nominee is not entitled to deference, because she has announced that she will violate the Constitution. Under those circumstances, a senator who rationalizes voting to confirm the nominee on the ground that the president is entitled to his preferred nominee is undermining the Constitutions advice-and-consent requirement, as well as violating the senators oath to uphold the Constitution.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417344/lynch-vs-constitution-andrew-c-mccarthy?target=author&tid=900151