Loretta Lynch isn’t Eric Holder – but that still might not be enough to win over Senate conservatives. At [Wednesday’s] Judiciary Committee meeting, the New York prosecutor was on the hot seat – but it was former Attorney General Holder’s record that was on the stand.

The only man in Washington more unpopular than President Obama, Holder spent six years enforcing one thing: the American people’s distrust of government. As the nation’s AG for six years, Holder heaped disgrace after disgrace on one of the most powerful agencies in government. Loretta Lynch is the White House’s best hope at redemption for a Department struggling to pick up the pieces after Fast and Furious, conservative targeting, terrorist trial, voter ID, and marriage law scandals.

At every turn, Senate conservatives tried to distinguish Lynch’s positions from her failed predecessor, carefully working through a host of issues that could mean more headaches for an agency already hanging on by a moral thread. To land the job, Lynch, a respected New York federal prosecutor, will need three GOP votes.

Sen. Jeff Sessions ® won’t be one of them, as the Alabama leader made quite clear after hearing Lynch’s position on the President’s controversial amnesty order. Showing a surprising disregard for the immigration law her agency would be responsible for enforcing, Lynch said, “I believe that the right and obligation to work is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here.”

Asked if she thought the President’s actions were “legal and constitutional,” Lynch said yes. That didn’t sit well with plenty of conservatives, who see the President’s executive order, which would roll out the welcome mat to as many as five million people who entered the country illegally, as a gross violation of U.S. law. “…You’re here defending this, and I believe it’s indefensible,” Sen. Sessions fired back. “I just want to tell you, that’s a big problem for me… President Obama’s executive amnesty represents one of the most breathtaking exertions of executive power in the history of this country… and the legal opinion attempting to justify this circumvention of Congress was issued by the Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel.”

On social issues, Lynch’s views were a mixed bag. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tackled the issue of same-sex “marriage,” which the Holder DOJ lawlessly advanced by refusing to defend DOMA in court. “What’s the legal difference,” Sen. Graham pressed, “between a state ban on same-sex marriage being unconstitutional but a ban on polygamy being constitutional?” In an obvious dodge, Lynch responded that she hadn’t been involved in the arguments before the Supreme Court so she was “not comfortable undertaking legal analysis without having had the ability to undertake a review of the relevant facts and the precedent there. So I certainly would not be able to provide you with that analysis at this point, but I look forward to continuing the discussion with you.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) saw plenty of red flags in Lynch’s position on life, pointing out that a majority of Americans – as well as the Supreme Court – supported the ban on partial birth abortion. Yet she, judging by her questionnaire, personally wrote briefs that defended one of the most brutal and inhumane practices on the planet. Of all the cases to involve herself, Sen. Grassley asked, why this particular issue? Lynch tried to deflect the question, claiming that she was concerned about how the law would be implemented and not the procedure itself.

Later on, Sen. Sessions asked Lynch point blank whether she supported marijuana legalization. “Senator, I do not.” Although her position on pot pits her against President Obama’s personal views, Lynch said flat out, “Not only do I not support legalization of marijuana—it is not the position of the Department of Justice currently, to support the legalization, nor would it be the position should I become confirmed as Attorney General.”

With Republicans in the Senate majority, Lynch can only advance from the Judiciary Committee if the GOP approves of her nomination. The question is, do they trust her to do what Eric Holder didn’t: honor and uphold the Constitution?

Gem State Broaches Rights Fight

Where’s the resistance to same-sex “marriage?” A better question might be: where isn’t it? While the Left is busy telling the media that Americans have “moved on” from marriage, conservatives everywhere are proving them wrong. In several states, the backlash to the courts’ overreach on marriage is sprouting up in legislative committees faster than reporters can cover them. Even the New York Times is finally admitting that the wave of opposition isn’t subsiding in states where out-of-control judges swung their gavels like sledgehammers against voter-approved marriage laws.

By large numbers, leaders are firing back with all kinds of legislation to stop the spread of court-imposed same-sex “marriage” at their borders, including some bills that take aim at officials who act against the will of the people.

In Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, Republicans are moving quickly on measures that would penalize any government employee caught issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses – regardless of the courts’ orders. Meanwhile, Utah, North Carolina, and South Carolina are desperately trying to give cover to anyone with religious objections to same-sex “marriage” by drafting bills that would give government officials the ability to opt out of licensing or officiating same-sex couples. State Sen. Lee Bright (R-S.C.) thinks it’s just common sense. “We have similar language for folks that work in health care that don’t want to participate in abortions.”

For Tar Heels like John Kallam Jr., the protections can’t come soon enough. Like at least five other magistrates, he quit his job when his boss said he wouldn’t have any choice in issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses. “Does not the federal government allow for different people to have different beliefs?” he asked. It certainly used to.

For now, the brushfire over religious liberty continues in places like Idaho, where citizens are finally standing up to the government’s anti-faith bullies. After three days and hundreds of testimonies (including FRC’s Peter Sprigg’s), the state’s heated debate came to a sudden end this morning when Idaho’s House committee downed a Houston-type special rights ordinance that would have punished people with natural views on human biology and sexuality. By a 13-4 vote, Republicans succeeded in killing the measure.

In the end, conservatives made it clear to the Left’s Add the Words campaign that the only words that matter are the First Amendment’s. Congratulations to our friends in the Gem State, who are adding their voices to those across the country who have the courage to fight back against these fierce assaults to our most basic freedoms.

Curious Georgia: Voters Question Local RFRA

In the battle for America’s future, sometimes it feels like conservatives are only playing defense. But in states like Georgia, plenty of pastors are going on the offensive. After the sacking of Christian fire chief Kelvin Cochran, silence was no longer an option for several church leaders, who see the writing on the wall for the freedoms they’ve long enjoyed.

This week, a multitude of pastors packed into the Georgia State Capitol to back a bill that would protect men and women of faith from the ridiculous politically-correct onslaught. H.B. 29, which is actually called the “Preventing Government Overreach on Religious Expression Act,” became a natural rallying cry after Cochran’s firing. And looking out over the big crowd, the bill’s Senate sponsor could see just how engaged the community had become. “This is like being at the Alamo and seeing the cavalry arrive,” he said.

Several people spoke at the event, including Dr. Gerald Harris, who called on the state to stop the oppression of Christians. “We’re here today because we want to sound an alarm that there is a war that is going on. It is a war on religious liberty… Some have said that this is going to be the next civil rights battle of this generation. Many of us were around in the 1960s, and there was a civil rights battle waged primarily by black Americans. Many white Americans sat out on that to our shame. I am grateful that both black and white Christians and Americans have joined to engage in this battle.”

For more on the bill and the controversy helping to make the case for it, check out Travis Weber’s analysis on the FRCBlog.

---

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.