Loretta Lynch Confirmed

[HankB]

No surprise.

Here are the Republicans who voted to confirm "Eric Holder in Drag" and assure continued Justice Department protection for Obama & Co.

Ayotte, N.H.;
Cochran, Miss.;
Collins, Maine;
Flake, Ariz.;
Graham, S.C.; (expected)
Hatch, Utah;  (He's been a disappointment lately)
Johnson, Wis.;
Kirk, Ill.;
McConnell, Ky.; (And this guy is Senate Majority "Leader" . . .   )
Portman, Ohio

Amazingly enough, John McCain voted NO . . . wonder if it was a sincere NO vote, or if he was just cynically trying to provide himself with some cover since enough of his fellow RINOS were voting YES to confirm her anyway.

[lee n. field]

Kirk, Ill.;

RINO

[230RN]

I noticed there were no Republicans from Colorado in that list.  Yay!

Oh.  Wait.  Never mind.

[Jamisjockey]

It's frustrating how much emphasis is put on confirmations.  A sitting president is going to appoint people they want to do the job.
I don't get it.  Unless there is serious question about the said person's ability to do the job, why do they dig in besides political show boating?
The libs did the same thing with GW.
I'm not bothered by Lynch's confirmation.
Is she another liberal shill?  Certainly. 

[Hawkmoon]

No surprise.

Here are the Republicans who voted to confirm "Eric Holder in Drag" and assure continued Justice Department protection for Obama & Co.

Ayotte, N.H.;
Cochran, Miss.;
Collins, Maine;
Flake, Ariz.;
Graham, S.C.; (expected)
Hatch, Utah;  (He's been a disappointment lately)
Johnson, Wis.;
Kirk, Ill.;
McConnell, Ky.; (And this guy is Senate Majority "Leader" . . .   )

Amazingly enough, John McCain voted NO . . . wonder if it was a sincere NO vote, or if he was just cynically trying to provide himself with some cover since enough of his fellow RINOS were voting YES to confirm her anyway.
Portman, Ohio.

Collins of Maine has been acting more like a Democrat than a Republican of late. No surprise there. She's a real disappointment.

[Andiron]

Portman's vote disappoints. 

[Perd Hapley]

It's frustrating how much emphasis is put on confirmations.  A sitting president is going to appoint people they want to do the job.
I don't get it.  Unless there is serious question about the said person's ability to do the job, why do they dig in besides political show boating?
The libs did the same thing with GW.
I'm not bothered by Lynch's confirmation.
Is she another liberal shill?  Certainly. 

If Obama's appointing someone, isn't that the surest proof that they won't do a good job?

Then again, it's now the Department of Racial Justice, so she'll most likely do well enough in that role.

[TechMan]

Portman's vote disappoints. 

I am very disappointed in his "Yes" vote.

[roo_ster]

Advice and consent of the Senate.

The Senate has a role mandated by the COTUS. 

[Jamisjockey]

If Obama's appointing someone, isn't that the surest proof that they won't do a good job?

Then again, it's now the Department of Racial Justice, so she'll most likely do well enough in that role.

  Point taken lol

[Scout26]

Kirk, Ill.;

The most consistent Democrat vote in the Senate.

[charby]

It's frustrating how much emphasis is put on confirmations.  A sitting president is going to appoint people they want to do the job.
I don't get it.  Unless there is serious question about the said person's ability to do the job, why do they dig in besides political show boating?
The libs did the same thing with GW.
I'm not bothered by Lynch's confirmation.
Is she another liberal shill?  Certainly. 

...but we gotta burn anyone who agrees with the president.

[RocketMan]

Collins of Maine has been acting always acted more like a Democrat than a Republican of late. No surprise there. She's a real disappointment.

Fixed.

[Jamisjockey]

...but we gotta burn anyone who agrees with the president.

That's the mentality. 

[Perd Hapley]

...but we gotta burn anyone who agrees with the president.

People who agree with that sick individual? Absolutely. No one of his mindset should be allowed anywhere near an elected or appointed office.

[Jamisjockey]

People who agree with that sick individual? Absolutely. No one of his mindset should be allowed anywhere near an elected or appointed office.

Which the opposition party said when "our guy" was in office.
As much as I dislike the President, he is the elected head of the Executive branch.  Barring serious issues, I don't understand why his nominees wouldn't be confirmed.  His job is to oversee the department heads of government and appoint them.

[Perd Hapley]

Which the opposition party said when "our guy" was in office.
As much as I dislike the President, he is the elected head of the Executive branch.  Barring serious issues, I don't understand why his nominees wouldn't be confirmed.  His job is to oversee the department heads of government and appoint them.

Agreeing with Barack Obama is a serious issue. Similar objections could be urged against Bush, et al, but the Left mostly opposed them for all the wrong reasons. You're trying to equate unlike things. It is entirely possible for the Left to be wrong when they vote a certain way, and the GOP to be right, when they vote a certain way. In fact, it's quite likely.

[HankB]

. . . As much as I dislike the President, he is the elected head of the Executive branch . . .

Quite correct - he is not an Emperor. And when it is obvious his nominee's loyalties are to Obama personally, rather than the law, the country and the Constitution, then the Senate has ample reason to deny confirmation.

It is quite disappointing that they failed to do so in this instance.