And now strongly confirmed for those who still think Garland did anything close to an adequate job or was capable of doing so.
The thread above here is really something now it is officially confirmed Garland was always just dragging his feet, never even contemplating doing his job.
A true masterclass in demonstrating how the Dunning-Kruger effect works.
This has me thinking that if McConnell had let the appointment to SCOTUS happen Garland could have been the Obama equivalent to GHW Bush’s appointment of David Souter.
If they’d known how worthless he is, they’d never have fought his nomination.
So why the hell didn’t Biden fire the guy and put someone more effective in there when it became obvious that Garland was just dragging his feet?
Biden did a lot of good things in office but he made some critical mistakes and this was one of them.
Biden and Garland have a lot in common, temperamentally. They like to define themselves as defenders of the traditional order, but actually they are each obsessed with avoiding criticism.
When you do something, you get criticized. Much safer to do nothing. Or at least nothing that could effect actual change. Just look busy and speak in a Very Stern Voice about doing things according to the law (and/or For the American People): that’s the key.
Can anyone explain why Merrick Garland is still giving deference to Aileen Cannon in the matter of the release of the Jack Smith reports, particularly the Jan. 6 one?
???
What team do you think Garland is playing for?
If you answer that question a lot of his behavior is a lot more logical.
I doubt it.
Heh.
More developments today, as most may know:
I really do NOT want to try holding my breath for this release. At this point we seem to be in “Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown to kick” territory.
"Merrick Garland has not, I think, been a very effective public defender of the integrity and impartiality of the Department of Justice,” Andrew Kent, a Fordham University law school professor
It’s unclear to me what this Fordham University Law professor’s claim of an apparent lack of impartiality is.
Frequently siding with Trump maybe?
That’s usually the way "impartial "gets defined in practice; siding with the rich and right wing.
No, the opposite, if you read the article. Which is batshit bonkers. That professor was claiming that Garland politicized the justice system by going after Trump.
Here is this guy, Andrew Kent:
https://www.fordham.edu/school-of-law/faculty/directory/full-time/andrew-kent/
And he’s basically saying that Trump should have been untouchable.
I just want to bump this thread with a hearty “Fuck You” to Merrick Garland for being such a piece of shit slowass.
YOU HAD ONE JOB
Despite all the ‘but he did all he could!!1!!!’ responses that this will, no doubt, generate, I have to say: I can’t disagree.
In the list of those top Democrats (or their officials) who are most responsible for the current shit show, Garland has to be a top-3 pick.
Yes, while the fascists are actively dismantling our country, it’s useful to determine exactly how complicit each of our allies is.