The AG-designate: Tough questions for Loretta Lynch |

The AG-designate: Tough questions for Loretta Lynch

Eric Holder’s politically driven, ultra-liberal tenure as U.S. attorney general heightens the importance of tough Senate confirmation questioning for President Obama’s nominee to succeed him — Loretta Lynch, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky, a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights, writes for The Daily Signal that commonsense state voter ID laws are among issues on which senators must press Ms. Lynch. In a January speech, she supported Justice Department litigation against such laws, calling them attempts “to take back” gains for which Martin Luther King Jr. fought.

Lynch apparently considers capital punishment racist, too, and took part in an April conference organized by Justice that concluded “racial bias is pervasive” in society. She thus must be questioned about “disparate impact” — the dubious legal notion, lately rejected in a Fair Housing Act case, that different outcomes for different demographic groups suffice to prove discrimination, even without evidence of intent.

What Lynch told Mr. Holder as part of an advisory committee — about his defiance of congressional probes into the IRS targeting and Fast and Furious scandals and other issues — also must be questioned, as must her views on executive-action amnesty for illegal aliens.

Americans deserve answers. The Senate must obtain them.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.