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
If you are still unable to speak of this Executive’s overreach of authority without using the word ‘alleged’, then you are likely enjoying the less troubling effects of pot.
The United States Attorney General (A.G.) is the head of the United States Department of Justice per 28 U.S.C. § 503, concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. The attorney general is considered to be the chief lawyer of the U.S. government. The attorney general serves as a member of the president’s cabinet, and is the only cabinet department head who is not given the title secretary.
The attorney general is nominated by the President of the United States and takes office after confirmation by the United States Senate. He or she serves at the pleasure of the president and can be removed by the president at any time; the attorney general is also subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
All kicking and scratching aside, when the AG gets passed, he or she will still serve at the pleasure of the President. The alleged overreaches of the executive branch with or without the AG have yet to be determined by the other independent branch, the Supreme Court. So far this candidate has been quite candid. I am only troubled regarding her perspective concerning pot. Pot is far, far, far, less troublesome than alcohol or tobacco, or Big Macs for that matter.
“Richard Weaver, in The Ethics of Rhetoric (1953), highlights and evaluates three types of arguments in political rhetoric: reasoning from consequences, reasoning from circumstances, and reasoning from definition. These correspond well to the three approaches to constitutional interpretation that we can expect from the Court as it takes up these questions.
This is a world in which one often gets what one asks for more directly or more literally than one expects. If a leader asks only consequences, he will find himself involved in naked competition for power. If he asks only circumstance, he will find himself intimidated against all vision. But if he asks for principle, he may get that, all tied up and complete, and though purchased at a price, paid for. Therefore it is of first importance whether a leader has the courage to define.”
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/26/constitutional-rights-and-wrongs/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=c0e5bf6fc3-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-c0e5bf6fc3-79248369
When it comes to the law, it’s clear many here reason by circumstances and/or consequences. Is there any doubt JT reasons by definition?
As stated in JT’s address, he is PRO OBAMA as well, having voted for him and supporting many of his policies, including, but not limited to, HEALTH INSURANCE. But, the Constitution trumps politics w/ people of substance and character. Obama has shredded the Constitution as only a hack Chicago pol could. The cultists here are following their cult leader. JT is following the Constitution.
I do not understand Turley, he tells them that what this president is doing is not right, but when the AG nominee sees no problem with what the president is doing, he still does not have any objection against her confirmation. Guess I really don’t know anything!
Darren;
Our electoral process deserves to not have a visible unjust enriching participant = in the mix = due to Prosecutorial Gaps.
We also don’t need election races rigged (as Mitt bragged of doing with the GOP nomination – in his own film). And also that Dem’s can’t have an “ace in the hole”.
Feel free to email questions – as the proof is ALL fed archives undeniable.
Max-1
I take issue with your remarks that this realm is solely biased, as is JT. For one, I’m Pro Obama (supported him in the election and the Professor – too – stated he voted for him).
Others here – are pro Obama – but, on the issue of abuse of Executive Privilege – we must all agree it is wrong…
No Matter Who Does It!
Problem is, each knew POTUS will expand on the grounds laid before him/ her (as they should – being the right person for the job).
It is the task of the Law bodies to reign such in.
Lest we wind up being Reigned by POTUS gone TOO far!
Professor Turley, in a different panel for a House Committee, said he voted for Obama the first time. I take that as didn’t vote for Obama in 2012. I have listened to him in various places. Though he said Congress has the power of impeachment, he doesn’t think we are there yet.
Yet? So we are on the road to impeachment. Very close. Close to impeachment, but not quite there. So much of the SOTU was lying to the American people. I’m sorry, but I think we are there.
I have no idea what more he has in mind. If he can’t present a candidate for AG who values the constitution and the position of AG, then he probably has at least one unconstitutional act in mind.
So he has Republicans in a terrible position. If she doesn’t pass conservatives will be called racist. I think that’s why she’s there. It isn’t about the best person for the job. Which it should be. But another political move. She is being used because she is black and a female. It’s racism.
Does Ms. Lynch mind being used by color and gender? I guess not, but if I were her I would be outraged and refuse the appointment.
Professor Turley, how could you listen to her approve the unconstitutional acts of Obama and not regard impeachment as necessary? Could you explain, because for me the time was up a long time ago. Yes, the people had the opportunity to take him out of office and didn’t. Gruber had the answer all along, the people were too stupid to understand what was happening. So, those who do understand need to speak out for the Constitution and the people.
Please.
Sandi,
There is the element of the social contract to consider with respect to natural law/natural rights.
I didn’t hear it all. I did hear agreement with Obama a Executive Orders whenever pointed out. You could tell when Senator Sessions questioned how disappointed he was.
She sounded just like Holder and we shouldn’t be surprised. She’s on the voting rights bandwagon, along with everybody has a right to work. Right to work makes me think of natural law. I know nothing about natural law, but if you’re born you need to stay alive, have to work. Am I destroying this?
Usually there anonymous comments on lots of things from folks in D of J, has there been anything yet?
One guy said she was raised properly! Properly about manners or properly about thought. His testimony was poetic, I got lost in the wording.
Max-1, she spoke yesterday about her view of law was based on the Constitution. Then approved of everything Obama has done, even when constitutional. The Sherrif from Milwaukee pointed out letting a convicted, not accused, murderer out on bond. Then he killed someone else. His testimony really hit the nail on the head. Why aren’t we deporting convicted murders?
I guess the next step is she returns for another day.
LaserDLiquidator,
Thank you for providing those links and other information. I will begin reading it this evening when I have more time. I appreciate it.
I have to disagree with the argument several have offered that the testimony by Professor Turley was irrelevant to the hearings.
There were several other speakers before the hearing who did not make mention as to their beliefs of the qualifications of Ms. Lynch but rather instead offered other forms of perspective.
It could be argued that the purpose of those persons testifying is to provide the Senate with additional information to consider in their evaluation as to the merits of confirming Ms. Lynch as Attorney General. Each of these speakers offers what they believe to be important issues that they would like for the Senate to investigate upon.
The confirmation of any candidate for an appointed position is truly under the prerogative of the Senate and not those who testify in the manner used during this hearing. In my view this approach by these speakers shows objectivity and actually a form of respect in the Senate. Had a position as to whether or not Ms. Lynch is suitable for the position nominated it could taint the objectivity of the testimony for which each of the speakers presented their concern. In other words, the information is presented solely as in the furtherance of their individual position.
Now it could surely be inferred by offering requests and insights into ways the Senate could evaluate a nominee shows a bias with regard to the subject posed to the Senate, but in fact that constitutional right of the speaker to provide their action. They are not necessarily getting personal with Ms. Lynch, but they are seeking an evaluation of their concern of any nominee for the position of Attorney General.
“Sheldon Whitehouse has been in the Senate since 2006”
And in other inane commentary, “15 minutes can save you 15% more on car insurance.”
Annie,
Mr. Turley is being used by the GOP and may here support that abuse.
If it’s an Eric Holder head hunt they’re after, Ms. Lynch’s confirmation isn’t the place for it. They know it yet flaunt themselves before us gleefully, patting one another on the back for a job well played on Mr. Turley.
It’s immaterial and irrelevant to discuss the current status of the DOJ during a confirmation hearing for the person nominated to lead the DOJ? Huh. Interesting perspective.
Sheldon Whitehouse has been in the Senate since 2006, lol.
Breaking news: Irrelevant (to the matter at hand; aimed at an absent, hence unable to respond, Eric Holder) testimony of Turley, et al, at Lynch confirmation hearings, pointedly mocked by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.
What Senator Whitehouse fails to understand is the witnesses before this committee have serious reservations about the fitness of this committee to do the job set before them, as evidenced by [Insert Name Here’s] failure to honor their solemn oath of office. I seriously doubt Jonathan Turley or Catherine Engelbrecht is there to demand the current Attorney General respond to their remarks. Instead, I believe they are fulfilling their duty as citizens to remind this committee just how far off the mark they have been in their “solemn charge” as they’ve performed “beneath the dignity” of this once august body.
And btw, the Senator would do well to get his facts straight about George Washington’s Rules of Civility. He should be giving proper citation to 16th century French Jesuit’s for the rules that Washington would later use for penmanship lessons.
Jeff O , did you not atleast cringe when whitrhouse calls others as uncivil who had expressed the problems that the new AG will have to deal with , and the very next minute he talks about bush people doing bad things ?
Whitehouse is a rookie Senator from horribly corrupt Dem state of Rhode Island. He’s a carpetbagger and probably a one termer. He was part of the “cleanup” of Rhode Island politics and is reportedly even dirtier than some of the Italian pols he put in jail. They have guys w/ nothing to lose throw the bombs. And, Sheryll Atkisson worked for CBS. LOL. Desperate is right, Paul. I can see and smell the flop sweat. Oh, she’ll be confirmed. This is a failed prez on his way out. They’ll let him have this little cookie.
It is political and legal. IT’S DC, not some podunk courtroom in Dixie. I would expect even a ham n’ egger attorney to understand that basic fact. The cultists are stocked up on Kool Aid and ammo. I’m sure Leahy’s boilerplate dolt questions gave the cultists here arousal. JT gave a superb backhand return w/ humor and aplomb. I hope some of you got to see it. Classic.
And Media Matters, LOL!! Haven’t seen that laughable link in awhile.