Asset Forfeiture

Rand Paul Says Nope to AG Nominee Loretta Lynch

Says 'Mrs. Lynch has a track-record of violating the individual freedoms granted to us by our Constitution.'

|

"Are you saying 'Boo' or 'Boo-urns'"?

New York U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch's support of civil asset forfeiture as a "wonderful tool" during confirmation hearings, among other positions, has cost her the support of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). He announced today he will not vote for her as a replacement for Attorney General Eric Holder.

From Politico:

Paul, a likely 2016 presidential candidate who has made criminal justice reform one of his signature issues, said in a statement: "Mrs. Lynch has a track-record of violating the individual freedoms granted to us by our Constitution. She considers civil asset forfeiture to be a 'useful tool,' while I consider it to be an infringement on the Fifth Amendment. She remains non-committal on the legality of drone strikes against American citizens, while I believe such strikes unequivocally violate rights granted to us by the Sixth Amendment.

"Mrs. Lynch also supports President [Barack] Obama's calls for executive amnesty, which I vehemently oppose. The Attorney General must operate independent of politics, independent of the president and under the direction of the Constitution. I cannot support a nominee, like Mrs. Lynch, who rides roughshod on our Constitutional rights."

Lynch's position on amnesty is likely to cause her more GOP votes than her position on asset forfeiture or drones. According to Politico, she probably still has the votes to be confirmed.

Here's Jacob Sullum, explaining just earlier today how Lynch's own office has abused civil forfeiture, despite her insistence that there is supervision and "protections."

(Hat tip to Jason Pye)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

49 responses to “Rand Paul Says Nope to AG Nominee Loretta Lynch

  1. Hey, she can’t help it if she’s still in love with civil-asset forfeiture!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfFRXo19O64

    1. You’re lucky to have Civil Asset Forfeiture. You better not leave Civil Asset Forfeiture.

      Now go make Civil Asset Forfeiture a sammich!

    2. Statists gonna state.

      1. Catchy!

  2. She remains non-committal on the legality of drone strikes against American citizens, while I believe such strikes unequivocally violate rights granted to us by the Sixth Amendment.

    Dammit, Rand, the 6A does not grant rights. It guarantees rights will not be abused by the US government. There’s a difference.

    1. Yeah, maybe a stupid mistake while speaking but this was in a released statement.

    2. I had the same thought. Now we’ve had Reason writers (I can’t remember who – it was recent) and Rand Paul using one of the most statist constructions ever: the government “granting” rights. For fuck’s sake!

      All you have to do it replace “granted” with “protected” and everything would be righted. Can’t they get an intern to look for variations of “grant” and expunge them?

  3. Loretta, you ain’t woman enough to take on Rand.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_wwP8UZR1o

  4. According to Politico, she probably still has the votes to be confirmed.

    Oh, right on! Who (besides Rand) would pass up a chance to be a part of history in confirming *The First Black Female AG*?

    1. That’s right –

      Only

      A

      RACIST!

    2. I see what you did there

  5. Hmmm. Looks like at least one chicken has teeth after all.

  6. I can maintain this joke for days –

    Loretta Lynn is the first female rapper:

    http://www.thefader.com/2011/0…..ale-rapper

  7. So as AG, Lynch would violate civil rights. After Holder, I thought that was part of the job description.

  8. I think the funniest, sad, and ironic thing is that the same people who posted John Oliver’s rant about asset forfeiture are now dancing with glee that this woman is being confirmed as Attorney General. Not to mention her views on droning and the drug war. But since she’s black, is a woman, and is a Democrat she gets a pass.

    1. Sadly, for these people, Ed, TEAM and identity politics trump any conception of intellectual integrity or principles. They really are that pathetically childish. They literally do not give a shit about the things they say they care about. It’s all social signaling and groupthink.

      1. I called a friend out on this and they really had nothing to say. I mean they had plenty of excuses but in the end, the couldn’t really come up with a coherent response.

        Rand Paul isn’t the perfect politician but shit man, he’s smart enough to hit the areas where the progressives usually claim to care about and showing them for what they really are: hypocrites.

        That’s why they hate him with a passion.

        1. At this point, what difference does it make?

  9. She’s the reason our country’s ugly

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFq6eZBS1iM

  10. Here is a cover of one of Loretta Lynn’s most famous songs:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33ct9FBnIfI

  11. Good for Paul. Fuck Loretta Lynch.

  12. Sorry to disappoint you folks
    But I ain’t finished with my Loretta Lynn jokes

    Attacking the Democrats’ patron saint?
    That may be fine to some, but to me it ain’t

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEc65BgbK3c

  13. Don’t come home a-forfeitin’
    With confirmation on your mind

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBnkAkmLtaw

  14. Twitter is about to start taking care of “trolling”. IOW, prepare for anything questioning the sensibilities of a pussy (Lindy West is mentioned by name in the article) to get deleted.

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/2…..ty-for-the

  15. Here’s a cover of a Loretta Lynn song from earlier in her career:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV2EUUF47Ms

  16. These fuckers are nuts. The whole damn family.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02……html?_r=0

    1. “We aren’t contractually tied down to rationality; there is no sanity clause…madness is the emergency exit; you can just step outside and close the door…”

        1. Eddy,
          We GOT it. OK?
          WE GOT IT!

          1. Oops.
            Sorry. I thought it was another LL cover.

    2. That’s a good way to end up in the re-education camps.

      Over at NeoGaf, probably the most popular video game board (besides 4chan anyway), several people got banned for making a similar statement.

    3. These fuckers are nuts. The whole damn family.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02……html?_r=0

      Filed under: “Why would anyone give a fuck?”

    1. I’m guessing that Ira is selling copy by the word and had a slow week.
      That’s slow-week shit, right there.

      1. At first I thought Ira was merely channeling L. Brent Bozell until I realized the real target of his ire are the professionals who create interesting filler for the NYTs advertising supplements.

        1. I worked in marketing for many years; there is a ton of BS involved, since many in marketing (and their clients) are convinced BS is good marketing.
          Well, no one is using a weapon to force anyone to do anything, and if two parties are engaged in free trade, I don’t care.
          And then, everyone (including the wymenz) looks at a pretty girl.

    2. I don’t see anything in the article calling for it to be prohibited.

      Really, libertarians can have moral standards. There’s nothing inherently unlibertarian about thinking that the sexualization of youth (particularly coming from the same set who want children to be raised in lockdown) is in bad taste or is ugly.

      Really, this is just the flip side of the claim that libertarians support something if they want it to be legal.

  17. God grants us our individual freedoms, not the Constitution.

    The Constitution is an agreement on how the central government is to be structured and managed, and contains elements (the Bill of Rights) that supposedly prevent or limit the FedGov’s ability to violate those God-given freedoms.

      1. Since you are stupid and I’m not a believer yet you continue to bash principled objections for religious reasons you are a fucking twit.

        I don’t care one way or the other but halfwits like you salivate over fucking with people with beliefs. That is why you an a fucking twit. I actually don’t disagree with you sometimes, but you being an obnoxious twit obviates my sympathy…ie fuck off.

      2. Your gawd or mine?

        He must have forgotten that you are too dense and/or intellectually dishonest to realize that a ‘god’ reference to a deity is equal in significance to a reference to nature. Religious or not, it simply depends on how an individual thinks the universe originated.

    1. cavalier973|2.4.15 @ 11:40PM|#
      “God grants us our individual freedoms, not the Constitution.”

      Who grants god the right to do so? Another god?

      1. Well, if you start from the assumption that God is the creator of the universe (as most followers of the Judeo-Christian tradition do), I don’t really think He/She/It would need anyone’s permission. It’s God’s creation. God can set whatever terms God wants for that creation.

      2. SupeR GOD!

  18. My last pay check was $ 9500 working 10 hours a week online. My Friend’s has been averaging 14k for months now and she works about 21 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out
    OPEN THIS LINK IN YOUR BROWSER,,,,
    ????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  19. “Mrs. Lynch also supports President [Barack] Obama’s calls for executive amnesty, which I vehemently oppose. The Attorney General must operate independent of politics, independent of the president and under the direction of the Constitution. I cannot support a nominee, like Mrs. Lynch, who rides roughshod on our Constitutional rights.”

    Oh, and you were doing so well Rand, then you just started spouting crazy.

    1. Technically speaking, if you consider procedural protections to be rights, then it is entirely accurate to say that we have a Constitutional right for the executive to follow the law. The Senate would be remiss to confirm a nominee for attorney general who would not uphold the Constitution, including against the President who appointed her.

      Of course, a legitimate case can be made that natural rights trump Constitutional prerogatives, although I think anyone with their head out of their ass will see that what the President is attempting to do is, under a charitable interpretation, poisoning the well and, under a less forgiving interpretation, a net loss for liberty, since it is designed to make the affected individuals beholden to the government.

      1. He’s saying that the failure of the government to arrest people for exercising their freedom of association is “riding roughshod on Constitution rights”.

        That’s gobbledygook. He’s just taking his pet pevee, immigration, and trying to pound it into the constitutional rights hole whether it fits or not.

        1. You addressed literally nothing that I said.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.