Even Republican Witnesses Support Lynch for AG

Thursday was the final day of hearings on the nomination of U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch to be the next attorney general and even the witnesses called by the Republicans, who spent their time bashing outgoing AG Eric Holder and President Obama, agreed that she should be confirmed.

Today’s session was devoted to witnesses invited by Republican and Democratic senators to help the committee members make the very serious decision as to whether to Lynch is qualified.

Most of the Democrats’ witnesses praised Lynch based on their personal and professional experiences with her over the years. But the Republican witnesses had no such personal or professional experience with the nominee, nor did they take issue with her qualifications. In fact, they didn’t have much to say about Lynch at all. Instead, they spent their time criticizing President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

But what did they think of Lynch? The committee’s ranking Democrat decided to find out: Senator Patrick Leahy asked all of the witnesses, Republican and Democratic alike, to raise their hand if they actually opposed Lynch.

Not one did.

Despite the fact that the Republicans couldn’t find a single person to testify who opposes her nomination, you can be sure that a few dozen of them will still vote against her. Traditionally, the Senate has shown a great deal of deference to the president when it comes to nominees for their own cabinet. Almost never is a cabinet nominee turned down (it happened with John Tower at the end of the Reagan administration; it hadn’t happened before that since 1959) and most of them have traditionally passed by a voice vote or an overwhelming recorded vote.

Bush had 33 total cabinet nominations, 27 of which passed on a voice vote or recorded vote. A 5th nominee was confirmed 98-2. Obama has had 26 nominations so far (not counting Lynch, who hasn’t had a vote yet), only 11 of which passed unanimously or by a voice vote. Nine of them had at least 24 votes in opposition. And that doesn’t count several who were forced to withdraw their nominations because the Republicans refused to allow a vote. I think that speaks volumes about how obstructionist the Republicans have become with Obama in office.

"The Guardian piece is hardly cheering. They basically say "it's better than his usual drivel ..."

Breaking Down Trump’s Afghanistan Speech
"Also, some of them are Hispanic, and they're all rapists."

Breaking Down Trump’s Afghanistan Speech
"I am less worried by this than most of his other decisions. Frankly the more ..."

Breaking Down Trump’s Afghanistan Speech
"Those few times when he acts like an actual adult are when he’s reluctantly play-acting ..."

Trump Wars 4: A New Hope
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • D. C. Sessions

    I think that speaks volumes about how obstructionist the Republicans have become with Obama in office.

    Yes, but both sides do it. That’s why the Republican Senate will save President JEB Bush from the unprincipled Democrat filibustering of his appointees by changing the rules in 2017 to eliminate the filibuster of all Presidential appointees.

  • John Pieret

    D. C. Sessions:

    If it is President Jeb Bush, the Democrats (and the country as a whole) have far worse problems than who is in his Cabinet.

  • Artor

    The Republicans probably think she’s okay, because they like her old song, “Stand By Your Man.”

  • LightningRose

    “Almost never is a cabinet nominee turned down (it happened with John Tower at the end of the Reagan administration…”

    Ed, there’s this thing called “the internet” that could have told you this happened under Bush the first, not Reagan.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    They are not obstructionist. They have to do something to prevent Obama Hussein Obama from appointing the extremists that he isn’t nominating, if only to prevent another Benghazi.

  • DukeOfOmnium

    Tammy Wynette sang “Stand By Your Man.” Loretta Lynch sang “You Aint Woman Enough (To Take My Man)”

  • Pierce R. Butler

    … the Republicans couldn’t find a single person to testify who opposes her nomination…

    She supports capital punishment, she demands continued marijuana prohibition, she will never prosecute an American for war crimes or crimes against humanity, she won’t do anything to enforce anti-trust laws or insider-trading rules or suchlike – why would they oppose her?

  • hunter

    Pierce R. Butler: Because Obama nominated her.

  • Holms

    #1

    Yes, but both sides do it. That’s why the Republican Senate will save President JEB Bush from the unprincipled Democrat filibustering of his appointees by changing the rules in 2017 to eliminate the filibuster of all Presidential appointees.

    To be fair, they actually should eliminate filibustering. Not because of anything to do with either party’s candidate or politics, but because it is an incredibly stupid procedure.

  • magistramarla

    I agree with Pierce R. Butler. I don’t trust her.

  • blf

    She supports capital punishment, she demands continued marijuana prohibition, she will never prosecute an American for war crimes or crimes against humanity, she won’t do anything to enforce anti-trust laws or insider-trading rules or suchlike…

    And no-one on the committeecircle-jerk was able to find anyone to oppose her?