I will have the honor of appearing today as part of the confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee for Loretta Lynch, nominee to serve as United States Attorney General. Below is my written testimony for the hearing today.
Here is the full list of witnesses appearing today:
Sharyl Attkisson
Investigative Journalist
David Barlow
Partner
Sidley Austin LLP
David A. Clarke, Jr.
Sheriff
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
Catherine Engelbrecht
Founder
True The Vote
Janice K. Fedarcyk
Fedarcyk Consulting LLC
Stephen H. Legomsky
John S. Lehmann University Professor
School of Law at Washington University
The Reverend Doctor Clarence Newsome
Cincinnati , OH
Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz
Professor Of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies Cato Institute
Jonathan Turley
Professor, J.B. And Maurice C. Shapiro Chair Of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School
Washington , DC
The full committee hearing resumes this morning at 10 a.m. in Committee Room 216 in the Hart Senate Office Building.
Here is my testimony: Statement.Lynch Nomination.Turley Testimony.Senate
Jill – “It’s easy to imagine a white male but more difficult to imagine a black woman.”
I would say it is more difficult to imagine a best qualified person to get the job.
Obama will only pick someone who will cover up for him. She fits the bill.
Her answer that the Justice department will sue employers who give American Citizens priority in employment over illegals who got Obama’s bogus amnesty is enough to disqualify her then and there. It is as if they would sue if Veterans got a preference over deserters. I mean we know how much this administration loves deserters. Jeeeez.
Olly and Jim,
It’s easy to imagine a white male but more difficult to imagine a black woman. This truly is a racist and sexist society and we can’t lose sight of that fact. That’s the reason I’m asking everyone to consider, why couldn’t the most qualified nominee be a black woman.
But sure, why not a white male?
What I am trying to head off is all the people who will demand obedience to the nominee based on gender and color. While the racists and sexist people of our nation will play their part, casting aspersions on any woman or any black person as being the most qualified candidate, the identity politics people will be riled by the cynical into stopping the questioning of this nomination. Both groups are useful to the very cynical people who run things. It’s something we must look out for and stop in its tracks.
I’ll stop here because I don’t know how to better explain what I mean!
Olly;
If fighting for a pure electoral process and against corruption of the integrity of judicial process (in both state and federal courts) – is your definition of OCD
then – YOU – are part of the problem
Why Not Elizabeth Warren?
Talk about shock wave…..
Karen
The balance of powers structure of the tripartite system of government is already a double edged sword. It can lock into forward motion or, as we saw with the budget debacle, simply lock stopped. If a fourth elected entity, the AG, was to be included, this may add another ingredient to the group of three, each of which feels hamstrung and seeks powers through means peculiar to itself, from time to time.
The larger picture, always is the reason for the diversion from the ‘rules of law’ and the results. When seen as moves to protect the country from enemies, that these rules are followed or not seems to recede in importance. These being internal issues and hotly debated ideologically, present the opportunity to be scrutinized by those devoted to the letter of the laws.
Personally I feel that it will always be a question of the means and the end. If the end results in advantages for the American people as a whole/average, then that is closer to the ideal of what America means, democracy, by the people, for the people, of the people. If by adhering to the letter of the law, placing legal correctness above the workings of a part of the government that results in the average American losing, then perhaps, and hopefully we should step back and take in the big picture. We have in the past. Hopefully the court will this time.
Jill, “I say to you Jim, why not a black woman? Why can’t a black woman be the most qualified person for the job? ”
Why can’t a white male?
Jill,
Your point wasn’t lost; it was obstructed by your rhetorical question. Had you simply stated adherence to the rule of law is the only criteria necessary to consider, then one should have every reasonable expectation to find such a candidate to be any gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or whatever other characteristic commonly utilized in our culture.
Olly, Here’s the rest of what I said to give the quote its true meaning: “So, why not choose a black woman who would uphold the rule of law?
Because Obama and his cynical overlords don’t really care about her color or her gender, they care about her willingness to endorse executive abuse. I say to you Jim, why not a black woman? Why can’t a black woman be the most qualified person for the job? I believe that black woman exists.
That will most assuredly be a weekend to ignore this blog. We already have one weekend OCD contributor, we don’t need another.
“So, why not choose a black woman who would uphold the rule of law?”
IF, the most qualified candidate IS a black woman then that should only be a matter of consequence. We should demand the candidate filter only allow through nominees proven to uphold the rule of law and ignore all other criteria; this is not the Social Justice Department.
Darren;
You could (if the Professor would be so kind) – have weekend thread on M”it”T
otherwise (so we aren’t accused of high jack) – please email me laser dot haas at Ya
KAREN;
I think the answer is simple.
Take away the power of POTUS to nominate the U.S.A.G.
Let’s elect the person – and VET the failures of the DOJ – Openly!
As public discussion (mid term elect thereof)
3rd link for Darren;
There are more stories being investigated and forthcoming (as we speak)
Once Romney (worried about Jeb’s early push) came out (as if it was a secret)
Then Addicting Info did the question “What’s Romney Hiding with Off Shore”; which mentions both my racketeering case and eToys.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/01/15/mitt-romney-tax-returns-whats-he-hiding/
Mitt’s doing a John Gotti – Teflon Don – rub it in our noses.
There’s a new issue with his brother being investigated for Indian Tribe Trust fund scams (Scott shut down a sale of the Saulte St. Marie Greek Town casino in April 2008 – for $800 million – and then the Casino filed bankruptcy in May 2008 {with Scott Romney’s firm working the cases and hundreds of millions going out of the Chippewa Indian’s Trust funds – improperly)
It took 20 years to take down Madoff and our related Tom Petters Ponzi (that Bain Capital is involved in with such things as Fingerhut)
I’m only in my 14th year
But those 2 parties weren’t running – a 3rd Time – for President of the United States; and facing a paper trail of evidences any 1L could convict with.
Too bad the Professor can’t take my case as his clients elsewhere SCREAMS
Whoever tells and/or prosecutes this case – gets a Pulitzer!
Jim, You are misunderstand me. This is a cynical appointment by Obama. He and his supporters will have everyone saying that we must not question the policies of the person who is being considered because she is a woman and she is black. Poppycock! He is hiding the will to abuse executive power under identity politics. People are going to propagandize us with that claim and other people will advance it to stop anyone from thinking about what Lynch’s policies actually are.
The belief that there is only one black woman in the U.S. that Obama could choose for this position is ludicrous. There are many fine, highly qualified black women for him to choose from. It is not a accident that he did not chose a nominee who would uphold the rule of law.
So, why not choose a black woman who would uphold the rule of law?
Because Obama and his cynical overlords don’t really care about her color or her gender, they care about her willingness to endorse executive abuse. I say to you Jim, why not a black woman? Why can’t a black woman be the most qualified person for the job? I believe that black woman exists. Obama will never nominate her because she will fail to uphold his executive abuse of power.
Responding to Darren – CrooksandLiars dot com
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/01/mitt-romney-slapped-racketeering-lawsuit
Please Take NOTE:
This story links to an earlier article of when I first filed the racketeering case against Romney;
BUT
It is a different version and addresses the nationally significant and extremely important (retroactive secret) troubling matter of Romney & gang not being investigated (and/or prosecuted) –
because Colm Connolly was a Bain Capital law firm partner – just prior to his becoming the full Delaware United States Attorney on August 2, 2001
Refreshing everyone’s memory – Romney claims to be “retroactively” retired from August 2001 – back to February 11, 1999.
THE 2 cases the media has yet to focus on (that would be Mitt’s demise) are those of “The Learning Company” (merged with Mattel in 1999 by MNAT – and cost investors an immediate $3 Billion loss – Mitt & parties owning TLCo)
and – our eToys in 2001 – my turning down a bribe and reporting it to DOJ
Mitt then (reportedly) resigned and Colm Connolly became FULL – US Attorney
Colm was a partner of MNAT from 1999 to August 2, 2001
Coincidence goes beyond “preponderance of the evidence” standard (as it is his DOJ Office of Legal Policy Resume that documents
Connolly was the Assistant United States Attorney in 1999)
Whereas, there’s NO reported investigation of the worst corporate merger of all time – of Mitt’s The Learning Company with Mattel
that was handled by MNAT in “Deal”aware!
Great job, JT.
Darren;
Thanks for asking and here’s 3 new stories out this year that were not prompted by me; but made HUGE headway in public banter substantial.
January 1, 2015 – Fire Dog Lake
http://news.firedoglake.com/2015/01/01/the-unending-etoys-com-bankruptcy/
Excellent statement Professor; it truly captures the depth and breadth of Executive overreach. If one were looking for a compelling argument against the 100 year reign of the progressive, administrative state; this is undeniably a great place to begin. What will become readily apparent is just who are the liberal/conservative defenders of the constitution and those progressive, defenders of the state; with the latter failing miserably to indict the two-party system by heaping praise or scorn on one party only.
The 17th amendment should be a cautionary tale for the reliability of popular vote in the selection of defenders of constitutional limits.
His Canadian background is a clear impediment to understanding this important role JT is taking on, bravely I might add. JT was just asked slimy questions about his fees when testifying this morning. It is not only slimy, it is stupid. It is a boilerplate question asked by ham n’ egger attorneys. I have testified hundreds of times. The ham n’ egger attorneys would ask these type questions about my fees. I think my client won virtually every case when attorneys resort to that tactic. When I’m testifying I look @ the jury, as I’m asked questions and answer. They see questions like this for what they are.