Posted on 02/11/2015 4:37:42 AM PST by cotton1706
Senate Republicans face a tough vote on Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch’s confirmation, which has fast become a litmus test on President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
Oppose Lynch, and they’ll be ignoring a sparkling performance at a Senate hearing last month that won good reviews from members of both parties, who agreed she was qualified to lead the Department of Justice.
The “no” votes will also feed into Democratic arguments that the GOP is needlessly blocking confirmation of the first black woman to be attorney general, something that will be used against the Republican Party in 2016, when it seeks to defend 24 Senate seats. If confirmed, Lynch would replace Eric Holder, the attorney general despised by most Republicans.
The problem is immigration and Lynch’s comments that Obama’s executive actions shielding millions from deportation were probably legal.
That’s raised the ire of two presumptive GOP presidential candidates, Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rand Paul (Ky.), who are both loudly opposing her nomination — something that could make it difficult for many Republicans to back her.
On Tuesday, several centrist Republicans sought to deflect questions about their votes.
“I’m waiting until they’re done in the committee to decide on that,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who turned his back and walked away from a follow-up question on Lynch and immigration.
“I’m in the process of making that consideration,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson. The Georgia Republican then interrupted a follow-up question to repeat what he had just said, adding only, “that’s all I can tell you right now.”
“I have no comment on that,” Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said in response to a question about Lynch’s defense of Obama’s executive actions.
All three Republicans are up for reelection in 2016.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Lindsey Graham being despicable...as usual! But despite what he says, he wants amnesty and is very happy with the president's illegal actions.
It can’t be said, but what are the odds that two blacks in a row are the most qualified for Attorney General? We need a voice for mainstream US citizens, you know, those who “cling to their Bibles and their guns”.
WHAT tough decision!? What’s so tough about saying “Hell No”?
Stop the Lynch Mobs before she has a chance to spin them up.
If it is only about skin color, then Whoppi Goldberg is just as qualified as Lynch.
Let’s face it:
During the month of so-called black history, the Democrats have put forward, and are pushing forward, the name Lynch. Who was it that promoted most of the racial problems in this coiuntry’s history? Democrats.
So, the Democrats want to put forward the Lynching of America.
Absolutely! Nothing hard about the vote. It should be a resounding NO! She has already stated to Congress that she will not enforce the law.
Isakson still hasn’t learned from the phone lines burning down to his office.He’s a piece of crap and nothing more.Look for him to retire next just like that other piece of crap taxme shamless just did in Georgia.What a disgusting lot.
“Sparking performance”? What is this, a Broadway play?
Graham’s memo back to me was he is “ keeping an open mind” Rinocode for voting liberal and supporting Obama and his illegal activities. I live in SC, and am proud of my non-vote for this hayseed.
To GOP:
Vote no or I go.
Holy mackerel! Stop the presses! If they don’t vote to approve Lynch, Easley is warning that Republicans might lose the black vote in 2016.
It’s not tough at all. The women sat the’re and said she’s not going to follow the rule of law.
“Sparking performance”? What is this, a Broadway play?
I caught that line too. Unbelievable!
It shouldn’t be a tough decision to stop another commie lib bigot from being given a high paying government job. Come on GOP! Time to cowboy up and grow a pair.
As if there is one, single, solitary black liberal who would vote for any Republican who voted to confirm Lynch. Fantasy!!
Why should it be a tough vote? She’s an eric holder clone. She’s not for citizens being equal under the law, she is for legislating through the DOJ. It should be one of easiest NO votes you are asked to cast.
The answers given by the quoted Senators would have one believe they were asked to give away the country’s secrets. It’s a vote, you dunces. An easy question to answer. You either have an opinion now or you don’t.
We had to have the first black Attorney General. Now we have to have the first FEMALE black Attorney General. Can’t be the first LESBIAN Attorney General. We’ve already had that. What’s next? The first Muslim Attorney General? Better yet, the first BLACK TRANSGENDER MUSLIM ATTORNEY GENERAL. Yeah - that will work!
Naw, not enough boxes get checked.
How about first black, female, transgender, Muslim paraplegic illegal immigrant...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.