We have people pointing out a flaw in the current bill that we did pass, that the Senator acknowledges is there, and I acknowledge is there. People cite potential abuses from the system. But as the Senator was speaking yesterday on his amendment, a hypothetical came to mind. He has been in the Senate a long time. He is one of the great lawyers in the Senate. He has been on the Judiciary Committee for many years. Let's assume this hypothetical: A President of the United States believes strongly that the Federal gun laws should be enforced, that the Federal immigration laws should be enforced, that the Federal death penalty should be enforced. He or she nominates a person who shares those general philosophies to be U.S. attorney. Under the Feinstein amendment, if this Senate were a liberal Democratic Senate that didn't share those views and did not confirm that U.S. attorney within 120 days, it would then fall to a district judge in some district to make that appointment. Would the Senator agree with that?
Pete Sessions: “We have people pointing out a flaw in the current bill that we did pass, that the Senator acknowledges is there, and I…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing potential flaws in a bill related to U.S. attorney appointments.
Share
More from Pete Sessions
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 30. ____________________
I appreciate the gentlewoman coming forth, as she does represent the District of Columbia, but I think in the argument it is important to note that these are not just local judges that we are talking about. They don't handle any matter…
I cannot agree with is the way we have a political philosophy by the Democratic Party that we are going to open up completely our borders without regard for national security, without regard for the law, without regard for common sense…
I view that this Department is failing to protect this country, which is its core mission.





