Which sort of makes my point. Most of the base aren’t politically sophisticated enough to get beyond “who’s Gerrik Marland?” They don’t know enough to recognise him as a supposed compromise candidate.
If they do recognise him, that probably means that they follow politics and will see through the ruse and admire what they see as Republican cleverness.
So, are we all in agreement that the Republicans are just plain trolling us now?
So far as I know, nobody but me (and Mrs. Bricker) has suggested this.
Sure he would; I don’t think that’s at issue, but
It’s a very, very, very, very bad sign that this is even a question that has to be asked. The chief of police shouldn’t have to be someone whose primary qualification is being politically trustworthy, it should be someone who’s good at being chief of police.
Trump wouldn’t appoint Merrick Garland in ten bazillion years; he will appoint someone who is sufficiently sycophantic.
Wow.
Not sure if I feel better or worse.
It doesn’t make sense for anyone to take a job where they could be fired by Trump unless they are significantly raising their profile and/or are out of a (significant) job at the time anyway. In the first case you gain a lot even if you get fired, and in the second case (e.g. Christie, Guiliani) you don’t have much to lose anyway.
But for someone like Merrick Garland, he already has the job he wants, and has about as high of a profile as he’s going to get. There’s nothing in it for him to take this type of job, where he’d have Trump breathing down his neck at best and get booted next Trump-tantrum at worst.
It’s hard to see him taking the offer.
I tend to suspect the Republicans talking up the notion are aware that it’s a non-starter but think it sounds nicely bipartisan if they even talk this way.
I think Jared Kushner is the obvious choice. He needs something to do in between finding peace in the Middle East, revamping the entire federal government, solving the VA problem, and everything else that Trump has assigned to him
It’s like Wile E. Coyote putting down a nest made of dynamite and writing “NOT A TRAP” on a whiteboard next to it.
That was good!
So, your point is that the coyote species should be eliminated, so that massive herds of roadrunners will strangle our nation’s highways?
Yes?
Actually, the reason for him to take the job would be as a martyr/test case: take the job, take a hard stance on “honesty, not loyalty”. If he then gets fired, it’d be very compelling evidence that Trump thinks the FBI should function as a loyal servant to the executive branch.
However, if there’s any man on earth that shouldn’t be asked to take a job he very likely won’t ever really be able to do just to serve as a living illustration of a political point, it’s Merrick Garland. Let the poor man be–he did his bit.
I heard Michael Medved promoting the idea last week.
More than a few U.S. Senators have now suggested this.
One of the key question is whether he would, in fact, have to abandon his judgeship. I read a few things suggesting he can take a leave of absence if asked by the President to take another government post.
Of course, this is all just funsy. The chance of Trump ever nominating him is about equal to the chance Trump will resign in order to play more golf.
It’s an idea that might have had merit (Merrick?) if Republicans had done anything in the name of good faith or esprit de corps toward Democrats in oh, say, the past 9 years. But they haven’t. So no.
I don’t think that would tell anyone anything about Trump that they didn’t know already. Not much in it for him to make a sacrifice like that for.
I disagree. Trump doesn’t have anything personal against Garland. It would be a great PR move if Garland would take the job, and if there’s one thing Trump likes - and could use right now! - it’s a great PR move.
Mitch McConnell has already expressed support, and I can imagine Trump’s advisors who are reeling from the blowback (and whose jobs are said to be in jeopardy over this) would be supportive.
As previous, if it involves Garland giving up his current job he’d be nuts to even consider it. But you’re suggesting he can keep his current seat on the court - in that case it sounds like a reasonable possibility.
mmmmBEEP BEEP!
I’m sure Garland would be just thrilled to facilitate Trump getting some good PR.
Heck, Trump will nominate someone whose record suggests they want federal law enforcement abolished entirely.
What’s Cliven Bundy been up to lately?
Well, we can put this gripping drama behind us today: Merrick Garland Says, “No, thanks.”
The desire by republicans to get rid of the chief justice of the DC circuit court of appeals so he can be replaced by a Trump nominee, shifting the DC circuit court to the right.
That is the real reason he is being called upon, it has nothing to do with bipartisanship. It is just a way to shift one of the more important appellate courts to the right by removing Garland (who was nominated by Bill Clinton) so Trump and 52 GOP senators can pick his replacement.
God, I liked that man so much better when he was just a lousy movie critic.