The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings with President Barack Obama’s attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch on Wednesday. Ms. Lynch proved to be a very intelligent and capable attorney.
Despite all of her positive attributes, one response in particular to a question from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., AL) should garner a nay vote from all who respect the Constitution.
Senator Sessions asked Ms. Lynch: “In the workplace of America today…Who has more right to a job in this country, a lawful immigrant who’s here, a green card holder, or a citizen, or a person who’s entered the country unlawfully?”
For someone who has been a federal prosecutor and a purported staunch supporter of law enforcement, Ms. Lynch’s response was less than encouraging. Those seeking to replace current Attorney General Eric Holder – who has resigned, with someone who will follow the rule of law and be independent of the White House, got a glimpse of how she would treat the illegal immigrant situation.
Ms. Lynch responded to Sen. Sessions by stating: “Senator, I believe the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.”
This answer to what should have been a simple response puts her at odds with both common sense and the Constitution. It is, however, in line with the administration and very compliant Justice Department.
In answering the way that she did, Ms. Lynch proves that her loyalty lies with an ideal as opposed to the rule of law and U.S. Constitution. There is, of course, no “right and obligation to work” in the United States. As far as the Constitution is concerned, there is no “right” to work and no one is obligated to work.
The response was carefully crafted in such a way that it was politically palatable even if it wasn’t legally sound.
The impact if Ms. Lynch is confirmed by the full Senate would likely be a continuation of the policies of current Attorney General Holder. This would do little to impact the administration’s actions on illegal immigration, amnesty and the current investigations of the Department of Justice. There is some hope that she would be much more independent than Mr. Holder and not act as the president’s personal legal counsel.
The impact if she is not confirmed would be that the president would nominate someone in the same mold as Ms. Lynch. The president is not one to bend to the opposition party in any matter and certainly not when it comes to his attorney general.
Per inside the beltway publications, it is likely that Loretta Lynch will be the next Attorney General of the United States.
The recommended course of action – based on not enforcing immigration laws – would be to deny her confirmation; but, in reality, the Senate will never receive a nominee from this president who would represent anything but his “interpretation” of immigration law.
Will Ms. Lynch be confirmed? Yes she will. Is she qualified? No.