The Opposition-For-Opposition-Sake Crowd Vs. Loretta Lynch

     Yesterday the United States Senate voted 56 to 43 to confirm President Obama's nominee to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder. Loretta Lynch's nomination was proffered by the president 163 days ago and was delayed by senate Republicans over passage of a human trafficking bill, which passed the senate earlier this week. The last yeah in favor of Ms. Lynch's confirmation was still lingering in the air above the senate like the last remnants of a campfire when the opposition-for-opposition-sake crowd took to lambasting the ten Republican senators who voted for her.
     No one argued the imminent qualifications of Loretta Lynch as they applied to the job for which she was nominated. The opposition was based on ideology, namely her refusal to denounce President Obama's executive order on immigration signed last November. These same persons on the Right vociferously decried Democrats opposing George W. Bush's nominees based on ideology, but here they were engaging in the same behavior. It is inconsistent at best and hypocritical at worse.
     Ms. Lynch was correct in not responding to calls for her to comment on a signed executive order by the sitting president that nominated her. Especially when that executive order is under legal challenge by a federal judge's injunction. The disposition of signed executive orders with respect to their constitutionality and legality is not for the Attorney General to decide, that is within the purview of the Supreme Court of the United States, for a subsequent executive order to reverse, or for congress to override in legislation which then must be signed by the president.
     Opposition to Ms. Lynch's confirmation after the attainment of the human trafficking bill would have been senseless. Do the opposition-for-opposition-sake crowd really think that Barack Obama would have put forth a conservative candidate had Loretta Lynch not been confirmed? No, he would have put forth an even more Left wing choice, which after having opposed Ms. Lynch, the Republicans would have had to confirm or run the risk of looking like they are part of the opposition-for-opposition-sake crowd. Nominating candidates to executive branch positions is an authority given to the president by the constitution, and no president is under any obligation to please the opposition party with his choices.
     I understand the frustration of some on the Right with the lack luster and limp-wristed performance of congressional Republicans during the Obama administration. I too have pulled out the precious remaining shocks of hair from my balding head over the capitulation of those who are suppose to be representing me, and more importantly the constitution. But the Loretta Lynch confirmation for Attorney General with only 20 months left in the Obama presidency is not one of those times. In the final analysis, considering her qualifications and the passage of human trafficking bill, this nomination was just not one of those to make a stand on principle. I am not even sure that those who opposed her know the principle upon which their opposition rested.