Loretta Lynch

Loretta Lynch Confirmed as Attorney General Nominee, Faux Civil Rights Groups Hail Lynch's Elevation

Lynch's track record includes secret prosecutions, asset forfeiture, and failing to prosecute civil rights abuses by local cops.

|

White House

After months of delays, the Senate confirmed Loretta Lynch as the next attorney general by a vote of 56-43. Republicans had delayed the vote numerous times over unrelated issues. Jeb Bush, a likely Republican presidential candidate, urged the Senate to defer to President Obama's choice of Lynch as attorney general, arguing that presidents should be able to pick who they want. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), an announced Republican presidential candidate and one who's arguably engaged civil liberties issues more than most politicians in either party, opposed Lynch's nomination early on, citing her aggressive use of civil asset forfeiture and her refusal to take a stand on the legality of executive drone strikes. Paul also took issue with Lynch's support of President Obama's various executive immigration directives.

But if you listened to groups like "The Leadership Conference," which calls itself a "civil and human rights coalition," Lynch's confirmation is a victory for civil liberties by mere virtue of her race, gender, and party affiliation. An excerpt from their press release:

"After more than 165 days and countless meetings, marches, prayer vigils, press conferences, and hunger strikes, we're pleased that the Senate finally did the right thing by confirming Loretta Lynch to be our next Attorney General.

Attorney General Lynch made history today on two fronts: as the first African-American woman to be our nation's top law enforcement official and as the first Attorney General nominee in history required to overcome a cloture vote to be confirmed. Lynch faced this unprecedented obstruction not because of her fitness for office, but because her nomination was inappropriately used in a proxy war against the President and his policies.

While we applaud those senators who chose to judge Lynch on her merits to be Attorney General, congressional Republicans have a long way to go in proving that they can provide the necessary leadership to govern.

Lynch's confirmation has also secured the continued legacy of fair and responsible leadership at the Justice Department by Eric Holder. Her indisputable qualifications, character, integrity, and tenacity in the face of obstruction assure us she will serve the nation with distinction.

If you're having trouble figuring out what this partisan fellatio has to do with civil and human rights, you're not the only one. Paul is a flawed candidate, as all presidential candidates are. But in his four years in the Senate, he has exhibited a commitment to the issue of criminal justice reform, partnering with Democrats and Republicans to push for the kinds of policy changes, like sentencing reform and limits on forfeiture, that would have positive effects on the actually existing civil rights of Americans.

Lynch's record is far muddier. There's no evidence she pulled back on drug prosecutions in her district. She's a big supporter of asset forfeiture. She's engaged in "secret prosecutions" on at least 58 occasions since 2010. Her office has yet to act one way or the other on the case of Ramarley Graham, who was shot and killed by a New York City police officer in 2012 after being chased over a small amount of marijuana. So Lynch doesn't even seem to hit Eric Holder levels of respect for civil rights. Holder's had his problems but under him the Department of Justice's done a relatively good job investigating local police departments for civil rights abuses, and he's finally started to make small steps toward the kind of criminal justice reforms that could have real effects on the system.

Loretta Lynch? She's a black woman and a Democrat, and that seems to be enough civil rights bona fides for some. But Lynch isn't the first black woman whose vote was delayed by partisan opposition in the Senate. Democrats did the same to Bush judicial appointee Janice Rogers Brown, the same judge who this week launched a blistering attack on the pro-police orthodoxy embedded into case law. She was opposed by Democrats, for more than two years.

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.

87 responses to “Loretta Lynch Confirmed as Attorney General Nominee, Faux Civil Rights Groups Hail Lynch's Elevation

  1. …opposed Lynch’s nomination early on, citing her aggressive use of civil asset forfeiture and her refusal to take a stand on the legality of executive drone strikes.

    Was this even debated in the Senate?

    1. Those are probably the reasons why they confirmed her.

  2. “Lynch’s confirmation has also secured the continued legacy of fair and responsible leadership at the Justice Department by Eric Holder.”

    This group didn’t even have the common courtesy to lead with this sentence so I could stop reading the rest.

    1. That’s not how punchlines work!

    2. Its absolutely true. Eric Holder’s legacy regarding fair and responsible leadership at DOJ is secured by Lynch.

      That legacy, of course, is more fully described as the contempt for and undermining of fair and responsible leadership.

  3. Loretta Lynch? She’s a black woman and a Democrat, and that seems to be enough civil rights bona fides for some.

    They don’t give two shits about actual civil rights. Come on.

    1. Privileges on the other hand…

      1. “Democrats did the same to Bush judicial appointee Janice Rogers Brown, the same judge who this week launched a blistering attack on the pro-police orthodoxy embedded into case law. She was opposed by Democrats, for more than two years.”

        The only difference is Janice was on the wrong team, as a result her hold up did not result in any vigils or outrage or false accusations of racism. But along comes a democrat in the exact same situation, and suddenly the hold up of a black women is a civil rights issue.

        If you contrast the two situations the ONLY difference is party affiliation. “Civil rights” means nothing more than being pro-democrat and pro-FSA today.

        I hate the R team, but it is shit like this that makes me want to cheer for them is some sick sort of way.

        1. Maybe there needs to be some black Republican groups who can get out there and protest, pray, and hold vigils when Dems hold up people like Ms. Brown.

          1. Black republicans aren’t really black, you know….

            1. And Condi Rice has some comments on this also…

              1. A war criminal is a model for libertarians? Yeah, she was sec of defense while the army killed a hundred thousand people in Iraq, but she’s black and conservative and thus a persecuted victim. My sign when I went to her speech was: DEMAND MORE FROM YOUR SPEAKER’S FEES THAN WASHED-UP WAR CRIMINALS

                1. “My sign when I went to her speech”

                  Well aren’t you special ?

                  What if that speaker needed the money to pay their home mortgage ?

                2. National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, not SecDef. Nice try though.

                3. Hearing a deranged statist shit like you shrilly rant about her makes me like even more. When we whack a terrorist, do you hold a candlelight vigil and shed a tear?

                  Fucking traitor.

    2. Principals, not principles.

      1. In principle, if one is a black woman Democrat career public sector leechette, that is one principal to hold in contempt.

  4. “Prayer vigils” and “hunger strikes”? WTF – is she the second coming of Jesus now?

    1. It’s just shit to “elevate” how “serious” the issue is, and thus how bad the republicans are.

      There were prayer vigils for rosa parks because it was a serious issue. Thus if there are prayer vigils on this, this is a serious issue.

      That is how logic is taught today.

    2. That’s what I came here to say – hunger strikes?!?!?

      Get over yourselves – one hack is replacing another at the Justice Department, that’s all.

      Retards.

      1. Maybe some progs will die from their hunger strike. Anything that thins the prog herd is good.

    3. Yeah, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard of all day.

      This is what happens when activism entails no real risk.

      1. You misspelled “astroturfing” :p

  5. Identity politics can lead to absurd results and insulting messages.
    Whether Ms. Lynch’s complexion looks like mine or she’s a woman means nothing to me. What matters are her interpretations of tha law and how she goes about executing it which may result in the degradations of my personal and economic liberties ….?

    1. raaaaaaaacist

    2. And that is why your beliefs in individualism and fairness and equality are losing.

      You are engaging in a fair and honest fight, but there is nothing fair or honest about how these people are playing the game.

    3. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141075191

      The initial wait was because she is a minority and a woman, and the male whites of the senate had to make sure she knew her place, that she was to shut up and wait until they, her superiors, nodded to her to allow her to talk or exist.

      Then most of the vile FUCKS voted against her

      ANYONE who VOTES in a way that results in these MOTHERFUCKERS getting elected should not talk to me, EVER

      1. Wow, I’d sure hate to miss out on that person’s conversation!

      2. Jesus, how can you wade through that bespittled muck?

      3. Sheesh.

        Apparently Lynch did not exist until this afternoon.

      4. Holy shit that website is unbelievable
        fucking web 1.0
        libtards circle jerking all over
        probably about 75 I.Q. points total for the whole lot of em

        it’s……beautiful :’)

        1. I just imagine them all face down in a landfill. Makes me feel warm and happy inside.

      5. ANYONE who VOTES in a way that results in these MOTHERFUCKERS getting elected should not talk to me, EVER

        OK. I can live with that.

  6. Man, the GOP Senate is really making waves, sticking it to the Man.

    1. Gotta give deference to get deference, am I right? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

      1. Fuck that shit. They should block anyone they find distasteful. I get that Obama isn’t going to appoint the functional equivalent of Janice Rogers Brown, but the whole point of confirming these idiots is to keep the administration from appointing someone too extreme, corrupt, whatever. The Senate’s fucking job is to say no when no is warranted.

        And no is definitely warranted here.

        1. You sound like a teabagging wannabe slaveowner

          1. One of the big flaws in the system all along is that the branches don’t fight like they’re supposed to. That got worse when the Senate went popular, but it was a problem before then, too. And it’s even worse now.

            1. Can’t we all just get along? For God’s sake man, we need bipartisanship!

              1. Like we need a drone strike to the head.

                Washington was so right about “factions.” The parties are supreme in this country, above the needs of the nation or even the government, above the Constitution, above liberty. Nothing is more important than the parties.

                1. I pledge allegiance to the (state your gang) of the United Gangs of America…

                  1. It’s like the Camorra vs. the Cosa Nostra.

                    1. Or Gamera v. King Ghidorah

            2. That got worse when the Senate went popular, but it was a problem before then, too. And it’s even worse now.

              A lot got worse after the 17th Amendment. It had a very important federalist function, which was taken away to make the increasingly progressive infested federal government even more powerful, but under the guise of corruption of lobbyists in state legislatures.

              Is there anyone alive today who literally thinks the 17th Amendment saved the Republic from lobbyists and special interests?

              1. “Is there anyone alive today who literally thinks the 17th Amendment saved the Republic from lobbyists and special interests?”

                There are people alive today who believe that the laws of supply and demand are a plot by the Koch Brothers, so what’s to stop them believing other stupid crap?

      2. I suspect this was a kabuki routine. The Republicans made sure they had enough Senators to put her over the top, then they told the other Senators, “OK, we don’t need you, feel free to vote your conscience.”

  7. Democrats did the same to Bush judicial appointee Janice Rogers Brown

    You’re make the mistake of thinking that she’s a black woman. A Republican can’t be black, just like blacks can’t be racist.

    1. The Democrats did it for two years. Big, big difference, don’t you think?

  8. And our streak of shitty Attorney Generals continues.

    Anyone have any clue when the last time we had one who wasn’t anysmal?

    1. None in my lifetime.

      Though at least we know for sure that in the future, there will never be one worse than Janet Reno. Unless the Attorney General just starts killing people themselves.

    2. At least Bobby K was interesting in that he constantly used the CIA to target communists.

  9. Democrats did the same to Bush judicial appointee Janice Rodgers Brown, the same judge who this week launched a blistering attack on the pro-police orthodoxy embedded into case law. She was opposed by Democrats, for more than two years.

    But see, that’s not racist, because they’re Democrats. If they were racists, they’d be Republicans, which is why they opposed Ms. Lynch for so long, because they’re racist Republicans.

    1. To be fair, Janice Rodgers Brown was an Uncle Tom. Uncle Janice. Nothing racist about that sort of label for blacks who voluntarily leave the plantation Democrats have built for them.

  10. If you want to be fair, GWB had the most diverse cabinet of all time. He had a hispanic AG, black woman as Secretary of State and head of the NSA, Hispanic woman as Secretary of Education, and a Kingon as VP.

    1. That’s an unfair slam on Klingons.

  11. This matter has given the Obots lots of things not to talk about. The good news for them is that not talking about things is a skill that they have honed.

  12. Fuck the Teathuglihadist pussies for not living up to their reputations and letting this evil piece of shit through the portal. I hope they all get run over by trucks and choke to death on their own blood.

    Motherfuckers…

  13. Janice Rogers Brown is a very mixed bag!!

    “The lower court “underestimated the FTC’s likelihood of success,” Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote for the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.”

    FTC—Whole Foods is a monopoly.

    http://www.memphisdailynews.co…..x?id=37975

    Inexcusable on her part!!

    1. Welp – seeing as how she’s NOT the AG – now or anytime soon – I’ll worry about her later.

      kthxbai

    2. She’s limited in what she can do due to very bad precedents. On the SCOTUS, though, she could wreak havoc.

  14. If nothing else, I hope we can at least get a good rendition of “Coal Miner’s Daughter” every once in a while.

    1. Whoa – Cultural Appropriate much?

      That’s a po WHITE folks song! How ’bout Loretta sings “R.E.S.P.E.C.T.”?

      1. That’s been appropriated too. If ever you need your pop culture to be over-intellectualized and trumpeted as if it were revolutionary Enlightenment philosophy, you’ll find it on NPR.

  15. “president’s” is not the plural form of “president”.

    1. and “pedant” is the singular form of “dickheads”

  16. The important thing is that whitey gets put in his place. He never done nothin for nobody.

    1. Are you nominating Lynch to replace Jackson on the $20?

      1. Nah Woodrow Wilson will replace Jackson. Lynch can have the Susan B Anthony dollars.

  17. But she’s black. And a womynz.

    1. Lynch Black? Some people might object to that sentiment.

  18. No mention of Lynch’s racist hatred of whites and support for affirmative action. Have libertarians surrendered on another liberty issue? Yes! Libertarians always surrender to the left.

  19. A majority of the membership has essentially told the people of the United States, re confirmation of Lynch as U.S. Attorney General, to hell with you and your civil rights.

  20. A majority of the U.S. Senate should hang it’s collective head in shame, or perhaps go out in the garden and eat worms.

  21. “Jeb Bush, a likely Republican presidential candidate, urged the Senate to defer to President Obama’s choice of Lynch as attorney general, arguing that president’s should be able to pick who they want.”

    So…if the President should just have carte blanche to appoint whomever they want to the Cabinet…why did the Framers build a system in which the Senate votes on it?

  22. One would be forgiven for delicately pointing out that not prosecuting cops for civil rights violations is a tenet of conservative values. Libertarians need to make their minds up because, even though I agree with many of their stated values, they may be working for the wrong side.

  23. Pundits who think they’re journalists are amusing. Cherry picking factoids and sound bites to “prove” Lynch isn’t a coppertop.

    Lynch just defines “civil liberties” in the Progressive-circa-2015 manner. The hierarchy of relevant considerations is this:

    Baseline — The Police are our protectors, and they never make mistakes.

    Level 1 — The Constitution written in 1789 applied to an era where criminals didn’t have military firepower and domestic terrorists didn’t hide behind every non-Democrat party affiliation.

    Level 2 — Because the Constitution no longer applies, we should progress American society to a new sense of civil liberties and defer to the police in all matters.

    Level 3 — Due to economic hardships across America in the clogged courthouse dockets, we are going to implement a Reduction In Force. In this RIF, state and local judges are hereby eliminated. State and local public defenders are hereby eliminated. All criminal procedure will be initiated by the officer(s) in question, and rubber-stamped by the prosecutor assigned. Judicial balancing will be done by cooperation between police and prosecution.

    Level 4 — Persons found questioning the foregoing are hereby certified as Domestic Terrorists who are at least 3 of the following: psychopath, sociopath, misogynist, racist, bigot, reactionary, and/or rape culture advocate.

    1. Judge Dredd?

  24. up to I saw the draft four $8085 , I have faith …that…my best friend was actualie bringing in money in there spare time from there computar. . there brothers friend has been doing this for under 19 months and resantly took care of the loans on there condo and purchased a gorgeous Alfa Romeo . read the article……. http://WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

  25. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  26. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  27. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  28. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  29. pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.