Well, he didn't come right out and say that, but it isn't very difficult to read between his lines:
Senator Ted Cruz, in a editorial published in Politico magazine, has called testimony by Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch "breathtaking and brash" and is continuing to urge his colleagues not to approve her to replace Eric Holder, saying she will "impose no limits on the president whatsoever."
That much, we already knew. But then, given who and what Eric "The Red" Holder is and has been, we also already knew that The One wants a hardcore leftist partisan as his...well, lefthand man - or woman. So it stands to reason that he wasn't going to nominate anybody who wouldn't be an ideological and tempermental clone of the outgoing Reichsfuhrer.
Cruz, furious over answers Lynch gave at her confirmation hearing in response to President Barack Obama's executive order on immigration, as well as other legal issues, said Senate Republicans have two paths to rejecting her.
"First, if every Senate Republican on the Judiciary Committee votes no, the nominee will be rejected. Alas, to date, two Republicans have said publicly they will vote yes, and a third has strongly suggested he will as well," the Texas Republican wrote.
As there always are, and on the same weak-sauce grounds: "The President is entitled to have his own people in his Cabinet," always with the proviso that the nominees not be egregiously crooked or criminal. Of course, this POTUS is egregiously crooked and criminal and tyrannical to boot. But it doesn't plumb the depths of unfathomability why some Pachyderms would bow and curtsy anyway on Miss Lynch's nomination: They're afraid of Obama and they don't want to be double-whammied as racists AND sexists for shooting down the latest "historic" nomination. So the Judiciary Committee majority drew straws to determine which ones got to safely and futiley vote "nay" so as to be on record as such while the nomination itself doesn't get derailed out of committee.
"Second, regardless of where the committee votes might be, Republican Leadership could simply decide not to report the nomination to the floor. If Leadership did so, the nomination would be rejected — and there is no procedural mechanism for Democrats to change the outcome," he said.
And does anybody see Majority Leader McConnell doing that? Heck, he'd probably nuke the filibuster first.
But the Texas junior senator has a very salient point:
Cruz, in his op-ed, noted that some of his colleagues had argued that if Lynch is rejected, Holder will still remain in office....
"But Holder's lawless behavior occurred after he was confirmed. It is altogether different for the Senate to confirm a nominee who tells us ahead of time she will ignore the law. If the Senate does so, we are complicit in the lawlessness." [emphases added]
It should also be noted that in the 111th Congress, Dirty Harry (G)Reid didn't have to nuke the confirmation filibuster because the GOP didn't have enough votes to sustain one. So they couldn't have stopped Holder's nomination in any case. They have no such excuses with Miss Lynch.
Being in the majority is a bitch, ain't it, Mitch?
No comments:
Post a Comment