Don't Confirm Loretta Lynch
An unanswerable question hangs over the nomination of Loretta Lynch for attorney general: Is Republican opposition to her more racist or sexist?
As an African-American woman, Lynch represents a gloriously double-barreled opportunity to accuse Republicans of sub-rosa hatreds.
The possibilities to mix and match are endless.
Consider how Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin went to the Senate floor on Wednesday to effectively accuse Republicans of racism in the nomination fight, even though Hillary Clinton had tweeted on Monday that it is sexism and the head of Lynch's sorority has said it is both. Synergy!
The Senate calendar is a bus? If the NAACP ever gives an award for Best Strained Metaphor in the Cause of Calling Someone a Racist, Durbin should be a top nominee.
All of this is transparently in bad faith. Durbin may be many things, but he is not stupid enough to believe that Republicans oppose Lynch because she's a black woman.
Of course, if Lynch is blocked, Attorney General Eric Holder will stay in place. But there's no helping that. The principle that would be upheld is the Senate not giving its imprimatur to an attorney general who thinks its lawmaking role is optional.
All of this is probably academic, because Republicans will eventually hold a vote on Lynch, and they almost certainly don't have the stomach to defeat her, in part because they fear the dreaded accusation of racism-sexism - or is it sexism-racism?
The congressional fight against Obama's executive amnesty will fizzle out, and congressional Republicans can move on to something else, sure to bring its own charges of an implicit hatred, perhaps more than one.
Rich Lowry is editor of National Review.