The House has sent a letter to the new Attorney General:
Specifically, the committee provided documents that show three acts by Ms. Lerner that may have violated criminal statutes. One, she helped to target only conservative organizations, thereby robbing them of equal protection and due process. Two, she may have impeded the Treasury inspector general’s investigation of the matter by giving misleading statements. Three, she risked exposing (and may have exposed) confidential taxpayer information by using her personal email address to conduct official business.
And that’s only what we know so far. Congress’s problem is that the IRS has stonewalled it at every turn. The Treasury inspector general, J. Russell George, has become tentative after all the Democratic criticism of his probe. It seems the Justice Department is the only body with the powers to shake loose some answers about what happened.
The Ryan letter asks Ms. Lynch to tell him the status of that referral, and Speaker Boehner chimed in with a statement calling for the new attorney general to prove to Americans that “justice will be served.”
Ms. Lynch’s response will be enormously telling about her view of her job.
It will. But don’t hold your breath.
…who will make her obey the law?
The same people who are making Barack Obama obey the law, and the Constitution. That is, to first order, no one.
…has been schooled:
he would have failed my constitutional law class if he had tried to justify such sweeping authority to categorically rewrite existing law and confer benefits Congress never provided as “prosecutorial discretion.”
I think his reputation as a Constitutional (or any other kind of) scholar is highly overrated. It’s nice to see the courts finally stepping up to rein in these power grabs.
[Update a while later]
The “I” word is really the only remedy to this kind of overreach.
But partisan politics takes precedence over Congressional prerogatives.
How to recognize standard media tropes against the First Amendment.
What gives Congress the right to regulate it?
Nothing in the Constitution.
Note that (as with Roe v. Wade), one’s position on abortion is, or at least should be, irrelevant to whether Congress (or SCOTUS) has the power to declare it either legal or illegal. It’s about process, not outcome. But too many from both sides of the aisle (as we saw with ObamaCare) don’t give a damn about process if they get the outcome they want.
No, children are not the property of the State:
It is getting far, far too easy for idiotic progressives to impose their views, and take children out of their homes based on their belief that they aren’t getting the “right” care, the “right” education, or the “right” modern amenities. There is a major difference between “unconventional” parenting and child abuse.
It’s not child abuse to either live off the grid, or not attend public schools. In fact, I’d argue that it’s getting to the point at which sending your kid to public school is both child abuse and child endangerment.
This law seems absurd.
We’re living in a Carl Hiaasen novel, with a crazy tenant who is destroying the property, and we want to evict her ASAP. Why is it incumbent on the landlord to prove a negative?
It seems like the first condition could be satisfied simply by pointing out that she’s been renting a home in Boca Raton, Florida, and there are no commutable military bases nearby.
…has an aide who was running a rogue police force.
The state is in the very best of hands.
The problem with them.
It’s not just police unions — public-employee unions in general are an abomination. The teachers’ and prison-guard unions are a huge part of the disaster that is California government (not to mention its educational system). Roosevelt had the right idea in wanting to make them illegal.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Want a lawless police force? Federalize it.
Al Sharpton is an idiot, and should be an embarrassment to any news network, but it’s MSNBC.