Election 2016

Jeb Bush Calls for Deference from Senate on Loretta Lynch's A.G. Nomination

'I think presidents have the right to pick their team'

|

Man seeking executive authority a big fan of executive authority.
Credit: Gage Skidmore / photo on flickr

At a forum in New Hampshire, not-quite-officially-a-candidate-yet Jeb Bush said the Senate should defer to President Barack Obama's wishes and confirm Loretta Lynch to replace Eric Holder as attorney general. Via Politico:

"I think presidents have the right to pick their team," Bush said, according to reports of his stop at the "Politics and Pie" forum in Concord, New Hampshire, on Thursday night.

The former Florida governor made sure to get in a few digs at current Attorney General Eric Holder, saying that Republicans should consider that the longer it takes to confirm Lynch, the longer Holder stays.

A Senate fight over a sex-trafficking bill that includes a controversial abortion provision has held up Lynch's nomination for 160 days since Obama announced his choice last Nov. 8, but Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is threatening to break protocol and force a vote on the Senate floor.

"If someone is supportive of the president's policies, whether you agree with them or not, there should be some deference to the executive," Bush told reporters. "It should not always be partisan."

But the Senate has veto power over these executive branch nominations for a reason. The heads of these executive branch agencies wield enormous amounts of power over the lives of American citizens. They have a greater potential for wrecking the lives of average Americans than the president himself. Ask any property owner west of the Mississippi River who has greater direct impact on their lives: the president of the United States or the administrator of their closest regional Environmental Protection Agency field office.

There may be some partisanship by Republican senators who don't like that Lynch supports President Barack Obama's executive authority on immigration decisions. There's nothing partisan, however, about calling Lynch to task for her U.S. Attorney's office in New York abusing civil asset forfeiture regulations to seize and hold huge sums of money from citizens without having proven (or even charged) them with crimes, as Sen. Rand Paul did earlier this week. Calls for an end to these terrible, repressive tactics from both federal and local officials are thoroughly bipartisan, and Lynch's defense of them should inspire concern from elected senators. Polls also show more and more Americans thinking marijuana bans are absurd, yet Lynch sat before a Senate subcommittee and wouldn't even agree to the fact that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol.

Lynch has some genuinely bad opinions on certain important civil liberties, whatever a civil liberties group rallying to her side and threatening the lamest hunger strike ever devised by man may argue. "Alternating fasting days" is not a hunger strike, National Action Network. It sounds like a fad diet.

If Lynch's nomination fails, though, it probably won't even be because of her actual positions that are harmful to civil liberties. Bush is not entirely wrong to bring up the partisan nature of the vote. But maybe it's the Democrats in the Senate who should be rethinking their blind allegiance to party in their vote, maybe spend more energy exploring the role the Department of Justice has played in violating citizens' rights, and examine Lynch's support of some of these policies.  

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.

83 responses to “Jeb Bush Calls for Deference from Senate on Loretta Lynch's A.G. Nomination

  1. Fuck him. We should thank him for reminding everyone why he is utterly unfit to be President and what a shit bag he actually is. Fuck deference. First, the Congress doesn’t owe the President anymore deference than it sees fit. If the President can’t get along with Congress such that it will give him his appointees, tough shit. I guess he better learn to get along with them better. All “deference” has become is just an excuse for Congress to roll over and shirk from its oversight responsibilities.

    Second, even if there were such a thing, the Democrats gave Bush no deference. They stuck it to him every chance they got and refused to confirm judges and any number of other qualified appointees. Only a establishment shit bag like Jeb Bush would claim that Republicans should not return the favor.

    DOJ can run just fine for a couple of years without a confirmed AG. Obama has abused DOJ to such a degree and used it as a political weapon, he has effectively forfeited the right to appoint his own AG. The Senate should turn down Lynch and any other nominee short of a flat out partisan Republican.

    1. Look. Separation of powers is an old idea. It’s outdated. You can’t get stuff done if the different branches block each other. And government is supposed to get things done. That’s how it solves our problems. That’s why the branches need to defer to each other. That’s how you get things done and solve problems. Duh. Everyone knows this.

      1. His name’s sarcasmic for a reason…

        1. Hey! I only paid for one pun at a time when I signed up here. Is this some kind of bonus double pun?

      2. He isn’t even disregarding separation of powers. He is just a fucking loser who wants to roll over for the Democrats so the New York Times and Washington Post won’t say mean things about the Republicans.

        1. The only difference between a compassionate conservative and a progressive is abortion. That’s it.

  2. Judiciary defers to Congress. Congress defers to the Executive.

    Separation of powers is so quaint.

  3. There may be some partisanship by Republican senators who don’t like that Lynch supports President Barack Obama’s executive authority on immigration decisions. There’s nothing partisan, however, about calling Lynch to task for her U.S. Attorney’s office in New York abusing civil asset forfeiture regulations to seize and hold huge sums of money from citizens without having proven (or even charged) them with crimes

    Scott, you are referencing Jeb fucking Bush. Every position he holds, including “it” and “the” are due to partisanship.

    1. In bizarro world maybe. Jeb Bush is the picture of the establishment shitbag. He is the least partisan person alive. The guy’s entire purpose in life is to fit in and be the New York Times’ favorite Republican. If he were partisan, he would be telling them to turn Lynch down and stick it to Obama. He is telling them to confirm her because that is what reasonable, non partisan, people do. The Son of a Bitch would sell out to the Democrats in a heartbeat, as long as it would protect the various important top men on both sides and it would make him popular with the people who matter.

      1. No John, he’s completely partisan to the big government wing of the GOP. The ‘moderates’.

        The ‘NYT approves of this guy during the primaries, and turns against him in the general’ wing. He wants to be Mitt Romney. But that doesn’t mean he’s not partisan.

        1. Since when is being a sell out to the other party what makes you a partisan? Bush would work with the Democrats and pass any number of horrible programs. That doesn’t look very partisan to me.

  4. It seems to me that opposing a nominee because she supports a presidents extra-constitutional abuse of power would be the opposite of partisan. Unless all partisan means for libertarians is “for reasons that make me mad.”

  5. “I think presidents have the right to pick their team.”

    Well, I think presidents have the right to pick their nose, but that doesn’t mean they should do it without checks and balances.

    1. Silence, peasant! King …. Queen, oh at this point what difference does it make … Jebllarry has spoken!

    2. Dude, really? Kidding, that was pretty funny.

  6. With this woman as AG and Hillary in the whitehouse, we’ll be back to the dark ages in no time at all. Forget about criminal justice reform, forget about rolling back asset forfeiture, forget about phasing out the WOD, forget about not getting entangled in any more foreign wars. All of those things and worse will be doubled down on.

    And for what it’s worth, just replace ‘Hillary’ in that paragraph with ‘Jeb’ and it changes nothing.

    1. just replace ‘Hillary’ in that paragraph with ‘Jeb’ and it changes nothing.

      What difference, at this point, does it make?

  7. A Bush doesn’t understand the Constitution? I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you.

  8. Why does anyone think this guy has a chance of becoming president?

    1. He has no chance. The problem is that the stupid party are stupid enough to give him the nomination and ensure that Hillary is the next president. Jeb is Hillary’s only chance. Jeb knows this, Hillary knows this.

      Jeb’s number one supporter is Hillary. Hillary’s number one supporter is Jeb.

      1. You guys keep saying that. If your right and he gets the nomination, I will do the right thing and eat a lot of crow over it. If you are wrong and he doesn’t, you better be ready to do the same thing. Trust me, I am not a good winner. I am absolutely terrible.

        1. I’ll vote for Rand if he’s the nominee. If it’s Bush, I will not vote for him. I’ll either sit out the farce, or vote 3rd party.

          1. It won’t be Bush. McCain and Romney won by default. Every other candidate imploded. The voters were desparate not to nominate Romney. They kept constantly finding champions and putting them ahead in the polls only to see them self destruct.

            That is not going to happen this time. Walker, Paul, Cruz and Rubio are not going to self destruct. And all of them are more palatable to the actual GOP voters than Jeb. It shows how much of a bubble the guy must live in that he is even running.

            1. Rubio will self destruct. In the end, if Bush is out, it will just be Rand and Walker. Cruz is too focused on religion. I hope Cruz stays in congress though, he’s better than most Republicans.

              1. I can’t stand Rubio either. But unlike Bush, he seems to have some actual supporters and the establishment is going to have to back someone.

                1. He totally fucked up with voters. They’re not going to forgive him. The tea party clan will not support Rubio, and that’s most of the reason that he made it to DC. That and that guy he ran against in FL, who is a giant fucking douchebag that most everyone hates.

                2. What Rubio doesn’t have is a particular reason to vote for him. “Vote for me. I’m Republican. And Hispanic.” isn’t exactly a rallying cry.

                  Seriously, in what way is Marco Rubio substantively any different from Jeb Bush?

                  1. Bill,

                    Rubio unlike Bush pretends to actually be conservative. Other than trying to sell out on immigration, he has pretty much toed the conservative line. People loved the guy until the immigration thing.

                    1. I can think of a lot of other things I don’t much care for Rubio on. Signing off on McCaskill’s bill to destroy due process on campus is near the top of the list. Immigration isn’t.

                      Seriously, rhetoric aside, in terms of actual policy, Rubio is just another Bush clone.

        2. You guys keep saying that. If your right and he gets the nomination

          I didn’t say I think he will get the nomination. I said that Hillary wants him to get it.

    2. Good question. Seriously, could he make more of an effort to tell actual Republican voters to go fuck themselves than he is doing? Didn’t he get the memo that you pretend to like the yahoos in your party when you are running for the nomination? It is later that you tell them to fuck off and look out for the establishment, not before you win.

      He is just a fucking disaster as a candidate. First there was his refusal to disavow common core. Then there was all of his statements about how Hispanics are genetically superior to native born Americans and the country’s future lies in importing more Hispanics to replace the lazy natives. Now there is this. Other than raise a ton of money from various cronies looking for welfare if he is elected, what exactly has he done to make anyone think he is anything but a disaster as a candidate?

      1. The Romulan was a pretty bad candidate also, but at least he did pretend to be conservative.

        If Bush flunks out as a candidate early on, then that only leaves Rand and Walker. Rubio is a fucking joke, people hate him after he got elected on a tea party platform and wasted no time siding with the establishment as soon as he sat foot on the capital. He’s too phony, people see right through him now. And neither him or Bush are a hispanic magnet. Hispanics are not that stupid.

        1. It will be Rand, Walker and Cruz in a three way race. But I wouldn’t totally discount Rubio. The establishment is going to look for a candidate after Jeb figures out no one other than his big money donors can stand him. I bet they latch onto Rubio. Where else are they going to go? Fatso is so anti-gun even the establishment knows he doesn’t stand a chance. Rubio will be their only choice.

          1. It will be Rand, Walker and Cruz in a three way race.

            I hope so. I can live with that.

            If Rand gets the nomination, I’ll vote for him and donate up to the limit.

            If Cruz gets the nod, I’ll vote for him.

            Walker, I’m not so sure.

            1. I’m not too sure about Walker or Cruz. I do think that Cruz is far better than most Republicans, and a decent person. But I want it to be Rand, he’s probably the only Republican that can win the general. Well, I don’t know, Hillary is so unpopular that I think only a Bush can get her the win.

          2. Well, Rubio does not stand a chance in hell against Rand.

      2. Maybe he does not actually want to be president and is going through the motions to satisfy family expectations while intentionally cheesing off the GOP electorate so he will lose.

        It is as good an explanation as any for what he has been doing.

      3. Then there was all of his statements about how Hispanics are genetically superior to native born Americans…

        Well, if you’re Jeb Bush, most people, hispanic or otherwise, are superior to you.

  9. There may be some partisanship by Republican senators who don’t like that Lynch supports President Barack Obama’s executive authority on immigration decisions.

    So it’s partisanship, is it, to oppose rule by executive decree?

    1. I see Sam Haysom got on this first.

  10. there should be some deference to the executive

    Put that on his tombstone. He may as well be saying there should be no opposition party. The only honest way to handle this is to say, “You’re nomination of Holder exposed your pathetic lack of judgement that no, no, no. No way in hell you get your first choice. Nor your second, third, fifth. When you get in the teens, then maybe we can talk.”

  11. “Lynch has some genuinely bad opinions on certain important civil liberties, whatever a civil liberties group rallying to her side and threatening the lamest hunger strike ever devised by man may argue. “Alternating fasting days” is not a hunger strike, National Action Network. It sounds like a fad diet.”

    This is brilliant. We all should go on a low carb “hunger strike” until our demands are met.

    1. It is one spot of hope that the progs value their creature comforts and safety more than their stated beliefs.

  12. Shackford did you see this?

    The FTC wants to talk about the ‘sharing economy’

    And now the Federal Trade Commission wants to talk about what it means for consumers. The agency announced Friday it will host a public workshop to “examine competition, consumer protection, and economic issues raised by the proliferation of online and mobile peer-to peer business platforms” in June.

    A recent report from PwC estimated that five key “sharing-sectors” — travel, car sharing, finance, staffing, and music and video streaming — have global revenues of roughly $15 billion dollars and could increase to around $335 million by 2025. But with that economic growth comes questions about how to regulate new services that are disrupting established markets.

    They’re looking at ways to get their grubby fingers in the Uber and Airbnb pots.

    Scoop your peers, give me a hat tip (or not, as is your wont)

    1. But with that economic growth comes questions about how to regulate new services that are disrupting established markets.

      Does that not perfectly sum up the problems facing this country or what?

      1. With a pretty bow.

      2. Sums up one heavy book on my nightstaynd.

        1. Sums up one heavy book on my nightstaynd.

          Derp Kapital?

    2. have global revenues of roughly $15 billion dollars and could increase to around $335 million by 2025

      Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if the FTC getting involved in things, that they could decrease revenue in something by nearly 15 billion dollars in 10 years.

  13. Can’t we round up the Bush and Clinton families and put them in camps?

    1. Just make them go away. I liked the old man and even liked W, I don’t give a shit what people say. But that is enough. Tell the idiot sons and the embittered, I was supposed to be President brother to go get a fucking life. Same for the Clintons.

      The only good thing is that if Hillary and Jeb neither one get the Presidency, both families are done. The pay backs are going to be hell and the next generation will be doomed politically.

      1. But the worst possible outcome is that we get Clinton vs. Bush in 2016. At that point I will probably root for Putin or ISIS.

        1. I think Hillary is going to win the Dem nomination by default, though even that is not totally certain. I think Vladimir Putin has a better shot of winning the GOP nomination than Bush. There is no way. He is too much of a disaster as a candidate and there are too many other good candidates that are going to be in the race.

          1. He is too much of a disaster as a candidate and there are too many other good candidates that are going to be in the race.

            I recall people saying the same thing about McCain.

            1. Who were the “good candidates” in 08? Romney? Guilliani? It is a totally different party now than it was then.

              1. Ron Paul???

                1. +1 (and the Hinh signal is lit)

                2. +1 (and the Hinh signal is lit)

                3. He had no chance. He pissed off too many people with his blow back bullshit. He could have won in 08 if he had just kept his mouth shut on foreign affairs and made it clear that while he wasn’t going to go to war for frivolous reasons, he would absolutely smite any enemies the country had.

                  Ron Paul just didn’t understand Republican voters. They were ready to hear a candidate who wanted to get out of the middle east. They were not going to listen to a bunch of bullshit about how the US is really at fault when it is attacked and how everyone else in the world has a legitimate grievance. That shit wasn’t going to fly and it doomed his candidacy.

                  1. Yeah, Ron is way too honest. People hate it when someone is right and it goes against what they want to imagine is right.

                    1. I think he was honest but he wasn’t right. He was honest in the sense that I don’t think he at heart thinks very much of this country and sees its history as mostly a negative on the world. I never once heard Paul give any unqualified praise of this country or any unqualified criticism of any other country. He is a lot like Obama in the sense that he says much worse things about this country and some of the people in it than he ever says about anyone else, including our enemies.

                    2. I don’t see how anyone can argue that there was blowback against the USA for fucking around in the middle east for 50+ years. There was definitely blowback. Ron was right about that.

                      I think that more of Ron’s issue is that he’s too honest. He came right out and said we should legalize all drugs. A lot of conservative republicans just cannot embrace such a bold statement as that. When they think of drugs, they think about some scary darkies hiding around the corner, all hopped up on scary drugs and lying in wait to rape their daughters.

                      Rand is light years ahead of Ron in dealing realistically with politics. Which is why he stands a very good chance of making it to the whitehouse. Which would be the best thing that has happened to America in a very long time. We desperately need a Rand Paul right now.

                    3. Blowback is a valueless and content free standard for evaluating policy. In judging future actions it the precautionary principle, in judging past actions, it is a “so what?” , griping about things that cannot be changed.

                    4. He was honest in the sense that I don’t think he at heart thinks very much of this country and sees its history as mostly a negative on the world. I never once heard Paul give any unqualified praise of this country or any unqualified criticism of any other country.

                      Perhaps because patriotism isn’t necessarily the same as nationalism. He has heaped praise on the praiseworthy founders and on the moral and legal principles upon which “this country” was founded. Principles which are diametrically opposed to how this country is actually governed and has been governed for the last century.

                      Then again, some people just don’t like the foul aftertaste that the state’s cock leaves in their mouth. Others don’t mind as much, Ron et al might as well leave the state worship up to them.

                    5. I sure wouldn’t be a libertarian if it weren’t for Ron Paul. His predictions were bold and unpopular and as bonus, accurate. It’d be nice if people actually cared to look back to see who was right about things in the past. But then Krugman would be out of a job.

                    6. I sure wouldn’t be a libertarian if it weren’t for Ron Paul

                      I’d like to thank most elected politicians for making me a libertarian. The government is like a libertarian creating machine.

                  2. He pissed off too many people with his blow back bullshit.

                    Being recalcitrant on one’s principles is a good thing. We’re not going to get anywhere compromising principles for the sake of Team Red whose every victory achieved by such means has set back the cause of liberty without fail.

                  3. He could have won in 08 if he had just kept his mouth shut on foreign affairs…

                    Actually, I don’t even think he would have needed to do this. All he would have had to have done is reframe the argument. If he’d framed it as “These assholes really aren’t worth American blood and treasure.”, he would have found a lot of Republicans happy to agree with him.

                    1. Well said Bill.

          2. The best thing that can happen to Hillary is Bush. The worst thing that can happen to Hillary is Rand. By the time that Rand is done with her, she’s going to wish that she had stayed out of the public spot light. She’ll look like Yoda during a bad hair day before that one’s over.

            1. That is just because Rand is a sexist who likes to be mean to women. And if you think Rand would destroy her, imagine what Cruz, who unlike Hillary is an actual no kidding serious lawyer, would do to her. I think walker would destroy her as well. Anyone but a shit bag “I am really sorry for the embarrassing people in my party Bush” will destroy Hillary. As bad of a candidate as Jeb is, Hillary is actually worse. Talk about lack of charisma and likability.

              1. I still remember that scene when Rand told Hillary he would have fired her. I saw the look in his eyes and I’m telling you, Rand has it in for her and if I was her, which I am too happy that I’m not, I’d be very afraid. He’s going to go after her hard, there will be no pulled punches and the media are not going to be able to save her.

              2. Jeb’s not going after Hillary. They’re on the same team. The ruling elitist team.

    2. I was thinking more about constructing a large gallows on the capital mall.

  14. I think presidents have the right to pick their team

    I’m no expert, but it is my understanding that Congress has the power to confirm or deny presidential appointments. They have this power as a check on the executive branch. I can only conclude that ole Jeb does not believe that executive power should be limited. (or he is a fucking retard…or both)

  15. “I think presidents have the right to pick their team,”

    So sayeth Jebediah the Wise.

    [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    So sayeth some arcane legal document pertaining to exactly this scenario.

    I’m not finding such a “right” anywhere.

  16. Here’s what the Dems should do: announce that however long the Republican senators delay Lynch’s vote, the next time there is a Republican President, the Dem senators will delay HIS nominee twice as long. Thus, if Lynch waits six months for confirmation, the next Republican AG nominee will have to wait one full year no matter how qualified the nominee may be.

    Republican senators are like small children–all they understand is consequences and punishments for their bad behavior and masturbatory politics.

    1. And this would differ from the way Democratic senators have acted during recent Republican presidencies, how, exactly?

      “Pick your own team” died with the Robert Bork nomination, and was buried when Democrats tried to do the same thing to Clarence Thomas. In particular, note Joe Biden’s “are you now or have you ever been a libertarian?” moment during the latter hearings regarding whether or not Thomas agreed with Richard Epstein’s positions on the “takings” clause of the 5th Amendment.

      If anything, Republicans have been way too gentlemanly about it. Contrast Janet Reno’s confirmation (98-0) with John Ashcroft’s (58-42). It would be suicidal for Republicans to allow Democratic presidents to “pick their own team” while Democrats block any Republican nominees who aren’t RINO milquetoasts. If Democrats find this situation unpleasant, who was the key senator in the first “Borking”.

      1. The Bork nomination was an outrageous travesty. Bork supported a poll tax! He also fired Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor in the Watergate case.

        “Pick your own team” does not mean you get to pick Supreme Court justices who are out of the mainstream and who are principle-free partisans.

        This is very different from Loretta Lynch. NO ONE, not even Mitch McConnell, disputes that she is qualified and would make a good AG.

        1. “Pick your own team” means that a Presidential nominee’s political/philosophical positions are not a basis for the Senate refusing to approve him/her. Either those positions get taken into account, or they don’t. The question isn’t whether Senators should take *your* opinion of what positions are good or bad (or “outside the mainstream”), but *their* opinions. Republicans have every bit as much reason to oppose Lynch as Democrats did to oppose any Republican nominees.

          If we were in the pre-Bork era, I’d say approve Lynch, assuming she is indeed qualified. But we’re in the post-Bork era, and you don’t get to have “heads I win, tails you lose” rules.

      2. And Clarence Thomas (a. k. a. Long Dong SIlver) was a serial sexual harasser and a perjurer. He has probably masturbated while viewing porno in the Supreme Court building.

  17. JEB! has always been a big fan of executive power. Always. There is nothing shocking or surprising about this. The only thing he values more highly than executive power is his own opinion.

  18. “the longer it takes to confirm Lynch, the longer Holder stays.”

    So what? Keep the scandal-plagued Holder in office so that as his misconduct keeps getting exposed, it can’t be dismissed as “old news.”

    Or hand the DoJ over to whoever’s the #2.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.