Cruz attacks Lynch, then skips her confirmation vote

[240 is Back]

Cruz is my #1 choice for 2016, but if he's going to bitch about something, he should show up and go on record, voting against it.

Cruz attacks Lynch, then skips her confirmation vote

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, lectured his colleagues in a floor speech Thursday about how unsuitable Loretta Lynch was for U.S. attorney general, only to skip the vote on her confirmation and catch a plane to Dallas for a meeting and a fundraiser for his presidential campaign.

Cruz, who has been one of Lynch’s chief antagonists, was the only senator who missed the vote, which made the New York federal prosecutor the nation’s newest chief law enforcement officer by vote of 56-43.

Cruz’s absence was noteworthy and set political networks buzzing, because just a few hours earlier on the Senate floor he chided Republicans for failing to band together against her nomination.

Cruz has come under fire for missing votes and failing to attend committee meetings as he gears up his presidential campaign. On Wednesday, he was the only senator to miss the 99-0 vote approving an anti-human trafficking bill shepherded by Cornyn.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/04/23/264268/cruz-attacks-lynch-then-skips.html

[James]

Cruz voted against cloture, trying to stop the nomination dead in its tracks. When cloture failed, it was a foregone conclusion that Lynch would be confirmed. This was McConnell’s plan all along. A number of Republicans crossed over to vote for cloture, to ensure that Lynch would be confirmed, then—having insured her confirmation—voted a “show vote” against her.

[avxo]

Cruz voted against cloture, trying to stop the nomination dead in its tracks. When cloture failed, it was a foregone conclusion that Lynch would be confirmed. This was McConnell’s plan all along. A number of Republicans crossed over to vote for cloture, to ensure that Lynch would be confirmed, then—having insured her confirmation—voted a “show vote” against her.

Filibustering nominations where the advice and consent of the Senate is explicitly required by the Constitution should be tantamount to dereliction of duty. I don't care who the nominee is or who nominated him. Vote, either up or down. If the Senate wants to make it so that 60 votes are required for a nomination, they are likely empowered by the Constitution to change the rules to require 60 votes. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is shirk their Constitutionally mandated duties.

[GigantorX]

Filibustering nominations where the advice and consent of the Senate is explicitly required by the Constitution should be tantamount to dereliction of duty. I don't care who the nominee is or who nominated him. Vote, either up or down. If the Senate wants to make it so that 60 votes are required for a nomination, they are likely empowered by the Constitution to change the rules to require 60 votes. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is shirk their Constitutionally mandated duties.

Think of the wonders that could take place if Congress put as much effort into actually working/doing their jobs as they do pretending to do their jobs.

[BayGBM]

Cruz is my #1 choice for 2016, but if he's going to bitch about something, he should show up and go on record, voting against it.

Raise your standards.  You have a brain; use it.