After Eric Holder announced his resignation, Ted Cruz put out a press release which included the following paragraph:
"To ensure that justice is served and that the Attorney General is not simply replaced with another extreme partisan who will likewise disregard the law, the Senate should wait until the new Congress is sworn in before confirming the next Attorney General. Allowing Democratic senators, many of whom will likely have just been defeated at the polls, to confirm Holder’s successor would be an abuse of power that should not be countenanced." LINK
Several other Republicans have endorsed this sentiment, including Senators Grassley and
Barrasso.
I have vivid memories of the 1998 election. The main issue in that campaign by far was whether to impeach the President. Republicans believed that advocating impeachment would gain them seats in the House. They were mistaken. For the only time in the past 100 years, the party holding the White House gained seats in the election at the six-year point of the administration. Five Republican incumbents were defeated on Election Day: Jon Fox (PA-13); Mike Pappas (NJ-12); Bill Redmond (NM-3); Vince Snowbarger (KS-1); and Rick White (WA-1).
Despite the loss of these seats and the fact that polls showed that impeachment was very unpopular, the Republican-controlled House came back in a lame-duck session and passed articles of impeachment. All five of the Members listed the above paragraph voted to impeach President Clinton.
So let me see if I understand this. It is OK for a Republican, who has lost an election fought over the issue of impeachment, to vote in favor of impeachment in a lame-duck session. However, for a Democratic Senator who has lost an election to vote to confirm a cabinet official for the final two years of the President's term "would be an abuse of power that should not be countenanced." I am glad that this is clear.