A reminder that Garland was endorsed by the Federalist Society, which is why Obama thought he would be a safe pick for SCOTUS.
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
124 points (94.3% liked)
politics
19104 readers
3383 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Which shows how fucking stupid Obama is.
Well, it shows how stupid it is to negotiate with conservatives.
A conservative is never, ever to be trusted. Every word uttered by a conservative is either deception or manipulation. Never trust a conservative. Never.
Which Obama should have known better. But the fact that he is now worth 60 million dollars shows we're his interest really lay.
True. Neo-liberalism is just conservatism with a friendly face.
Exactly todays Democrats are just a less extreme conservative. We have no left leaning politicians except for Bernie Sanders in our government on a national level.
I think that was Obama's greatest failure - insistence on bipartisanship even when they didn't have to. Pretty sure he actually thought they were negotiating in good faith for at least his entire first term, and they smacked him in the face over and over again.
Like they proved they can't be trusted every single time, and he kept making sure they had a seat at the table.
Yeah, I think that's a better way to put this. I'd also add that I don't think progressives are going to be able to take on Republican fascism and win without having the moderates on our side, so calling them fucking stupid might not be helpful (though I fully understand the impulse because they've been making this same mistake since at least the Reagan years).
Garland and people in the DOJ who were left over from Trump slow walked it.
Once the Senate finally confirmed the people Biden appointed, the process started to speed up.
Garland is to blame, but Semate Republicans feet dragging appointments is also to blame.
Who do you think appointed Garland?
That link isn't working for me for some reason, could you please edit in the text of the comment you're referencing here?
The text of the comment that the link points to is:
"A reminder that Garland was endorsed by the Federalist Society, which is why Obama thought he would be a safe pick for SCOTUS."
Because Merrick Garland is grossly incompetent.
He didn't appoint special counsel to look into this until last November. Worse even than that: Garland didn't even file obstruction of justice charges based on the Mueller report, which was basically a ready-to-file indictment as written.
Remember, this was the most egregious case of Obstruction in United States history. This was a president firing the FBI director BECAUSE the FBI director was trying to find out if the Russians who helped Trump influence the election were actively conspiring WITH the president!
This was outrageous obstruction to cover up crimes that might realistically include TREASON, to say nothing of conspiracy against the United States.
And Garland did NOTHING. And he let the statute of limitations toll, and now we can't even charge Trump for this.
Outrageous incompetence.
This bit of the article and the Washington Post report it links to really demonstrates our problem concisely
[Jack Smith] carried out his investigation and drafted Trump’s indictment at a remarkably swift pace—Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed him only last November—even as he was also overseeing the probe into Trump’s mishandling of sensitive federal documents at his Mar-a-Lago compound. So while it is indeed a relief to ponder the prospect that Trump may face actual consequences for his subversion of the Constitution and his governing oath, it’s also vital to ask ourselves just why and how a case this important for the rescue of whatever remains of our democracy, and founded on a great deal of already available public information, aroused such belated and half-hearted interest from the justice system.
...
Alas, the same basic profile of a sclerotic and unresponsive status quo holds for the federal enforcement of election law, as the institutional background behind Smith’s January 6 probe makes all too clear. From the outset of his tenure atop the Justice Department, Attorney General Merrick Garland evinced little interest in mounting any such investigation, fearing that the GOP’s permanently aggrieved MAGA base would view it as a weaponized, partisan effort to hound Trump into political irrelevance. As a blockbuster report by The Washington Post’s Carol D. Leonnig and Aaron C. Davis revealed this June, for a full year after the insurrection, Garland’s team looking into January 6 “consisted of just four prosecutors working with agents with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the National Archives and Records Administration.” Garland also shunned any wider probe into Trump’s coterie of political shills and hack-legal advisers building the case for him to gin up a bogus roster of alternate electors from swing states to throw Congress’s January 6 certification of results into chaos. Those sycophants and grifters are now unnamed co-conspirators in Smith’s indictment, and will be subject to future legal proceedings. In the end, Garland didn’t mount an investigation into the electors scheme until 15 months after the failed coup attempt.
I guess none of us should have been surprised that a "moderate" Federalist Society conservative would drag his feet for fear of retribution from his own party. The best thing Garland has done for this country is assign Jack Smith as a special prosecutor. The next best thing he can do is resign so that perhaps an AG with intestinal fortitude can replace him.