Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve North Carolina native Loretta Lynch to take Eric Holder’s place as U.S. Attorney General. The next stop for confirmation is a vote in front of the full Senate.
A few months ago, we sang Lynch’s praises, as she comes from a long line of Baptist preachers (we won’t hold that against her) committed to civil rights.
But guess who didn’t have Lynch’s back? One Thom Tillis.
In a statement, he explained his reasoning for not choosing to vote for Lynch.
I have immense respect for Loretta Lynch both personally and professionally. However, in light of the testimony at her confirmation hearing and her subsequent refusal to provide straightforward answers to written questions from myself and other Senators, it appears that she would represent little, if any, tangible policy or management difference from Attorney General Eric Holder. I cannot vote to confirm a nominee who will not make a firm and explicit commitment to reverse the partisan politicization that presently exists at the Department of Justice.
Don’t you wish “partisan politicization” would cease to exist in general?
Tillis also pointed out that he didn’t like the fact Lynch would probably continue with the “costly and frivolous lawsuit” the Justice Department has brought against North Carolina for that pesky, discriminatory voter ID law. The one he had a hand in.
I like N.C. Congressman G.K. Butterfield’s response to Tillis’ vote. To loosely paraphrase: Thom had a chance to get it right, for once, and vote for the country’s first black female attorney general. But he was too worried about politics to do that.
This article appears in Feb 25 – Mar 3, 2015.
” I cannot vote to confirm a nominee who will not make a firm and explicit commitment to reverse the partisan politicization that presently exists at the Department of Justice.”
Now THAT is one of the worst cases of the pot calling the kettle black I have seen. But it is not new. He is being the same angry partisan hack he has always been and NC voters have made it clear that they desire that kind of representation. Remember Jesse Helms?
We don’t want someone committed to “Civil Rights” as Attorney General.
We want someone committed to upholding the Constitution and Federal Law.
Liberals have broadly expanded the definition of what a “Civil Right” is without any validation from the Constitution or Supreme Court and believe they can ignore
Federal Law if it doesn’t suit them.
Time for that happy horseshit to end.
“We don’t want someone committed to “Civil Rights” as Attorney General. “
“Time for that happy horseshit to end..”
Really? Wow!
Instead of focusing on partisan junk like race, perhaps people should look into Lynch’s history to determine if she would be a good AG? Does CL know that she was the person responsible for declining to charge any Wall St bank with fraud over the mortgage mess? How about her involvement in covering up and declining to prosecute HSBC for wide scale drug and terrorism money laundering? How about the conflict of interest where she’s bffs with Holder’s wife and they went to the same college and were sorority sisters? Does any of that disqualify her or are we just going to the lowest denominator of race baiting once again??