Merrick Garland allowed us to be where we are today

  • Thread starter Thread starter heelinhell
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 44
  • Views: 948
  • Politics 
H

heelinhell

Iconic Member
Messages
1,071
I was a big critic of meek and mild Merrick Garland from the get go, and I think that history will support my criticism that he bears a large responsibility for where we are today...

www.rawstory.com

'Biden's biggest mistake': Columnist rebukes Merrick Garland for 'dithering like a deer'

A newspaper columnist took Attorney General Merrick Garland to the woodshed over what he expressed was Garland's failure to hold Donald Trump accountable.The former president was impeached on his way out of office and eventually indicted four times for alleged crimes committed while he was in...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
 
Agreed. I got into it with super on IC right from the get go as well. He kept talking about what a great judge Garland was. How level headed, dotting is and crossing ts, blah, blah. I kept telling him a judge and AG are two vastly different offices. It would make no difference to MAGA nation if he went full force investigating Trump or not so just do it. It took super 3+ years to finally acknowledge Garland wasn't the man for the job.
 
I’m still in the in between, and to be fair, I think super is now, too.

1. Garland made a number of mistakes and was probably overly cautious early in his term. His institutionalist instincts did not work well in an anarchic environment.

2. It probably doesn’t matter much, as this SCOTUS would have prevented the federal cases against Trump from going forward regardless of what Garland did or when he did it.
 
lawtig02 said:
I’m still in the in between, and to be fair, I think super is now, too.

1. Garland made a number of mistakes and was probably overly cautious early in his term. His institutionalist instincts did not work well in an anarchic environment.

2. It probably doesn’t matter much, as this SCOTUS would have prevented the federal cases against Trump from going forward regardless of what Garland did or when he did it.
Click to expand...
I disagree with each of these to some extent.

On number 1, delete the word "probably".

On Number 2, the sooner DOJ brings a case the sooner SCOTUS would have had to come out with its ruling (recall that they delayed for a certain amount of time) and the longer they would have taken the more pressure they would have been under to release the decision; end result is that there would likely have been more time for the Jan. 6th case to be tried.
 
Mundial said:
I disagree with each of these to some extent.

On number 1, delete the word "probably".

On Number 2, the sooner DOJ brings a case the sooner SCOTUS would have had to come out with its ruling (recall that they delayed for a certain amount of time) and the longer they would have taken the more pressure they would have been under to release the decision; end result is that there would likely have been more time for the Jan. 6th case to be tried.
Click to expand...
Nope on your No. 2. There would have been a second appeal to SCOTUS after the immunity hearing and before trial. That would have taken another two years or so. There was no chance of this case going to trial.

Moreover, it is not as though this case would have made a difference in the election. The voters already had their mind made up about Jan 6th and the trial wasn't going to change any minds -- not that SCOTUS ever would have let the trial go forward before the election.
 
Mundial said:
I disagree with each of these to some extent.

On number 1, delete the word "probably".

On Number 2, the sooner DOJ brings a case the sooner SCOTUS would have had to come out with its ruling (recall that they delayed for a certain amount of time) and the longer they would have taken the more pressure they would have been under to release the decision; end result is that there would likely have been more time for the Jan. 6th case to be tried.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how you can be certain about anything that would happen in alternative histories, but fine on one. It doesn’t matter.

Completely disagree on #2. Now that we’ve seen what the court did on immunity, and especially that Roberts wrote the opinion, it’s very hard to imagine any of the federal cases would have gone to trial. The court was ready to step u whenever needed.
 
lawtig02 said:
I’m still in the in between, and to be fair, I think super is now, too.

1. Garland made a number of mistakes and was probably overly cautious early in his term. His institutionalist instincts did not work well in an anarchic environment.

2. It probably doesn’t matter much, as this SCOTUS would have prevented the federal cases against Trump from going forward regardless of what Garland did or when he did it.
Click to expand...
lawtig02 said:
I’m still in the in between, and to be fair, I think super is now, too.

1. Garland made a number of mistakes and was probably overly cautious early in his term. His institutionalist instincts did not work well in an anarchic environment.

2. It probably doesn’t matter much, as this SCOTUS would have prevented the federal cases against Trump from going forward regardless of what Garland did or when he did it.
Click to expand...
It took Jack Smith less than 1 year to indict Trump

Trump announced he was running for president 11/15 2022. If Garland had ordered an investigation shortly after becoming AG, there would have been time to indict him before he announced he was running for president.

That being the case SCOTUS would have been granting immunity well before the election and the DC judge would have had plenty of time to parse out the parameters of immunity well before the election.

Garland should get no pass for the craven shirking of his duty under any circumstance.
 
heelinhell said:
It took Jack Smith less than 1 year to indict Trump

Trump announced he was running for president 11/15 2022. If Garland had ordered an investigation shortly after becoming AG, there would have been time to indict him before he announced he was running for president.

That being the case SCOTUS would have been granting immunity well before the election and the DC judge would have had plenty of time to parse out the parameters of immunity well before the election.

Garland should get no pass for his craven shirking of his duty under any circumstance.
Click to expand...
So I’ll admit I can’t know with certainty. Neither can you or anyone else. But it’s just so extraordinarily improbable the court would have allowed any of those cases to go to trial. Read the opinion again. It wasn’t going to happen.

This is not defending Garland. I don’t have any interest in defending or accusing him. My point is it would not have mattered in terms of bringing Trump to trial.
 
Last edited:
Calheel said:
Nope on your No. 2. There would have been a second appeal to SCOTUS after the immunity hearing and before trial. That would have taken another two years or so. There was no chance of this case going to trial.

Moreover, it is not as though this case would have made a difference in the election. The voters already had their mind made up about Jan 6th and the trial wasn't going to change any minds -- not that SCOTUS ever would have let the trial go forward before the election.
Click to expand...
We agree to disagree on the potential outcome of No. 2. Nonetheless, Garland was grossly derelict in his duties. However, he was happy to prosecute nobodies expeditiously for Jan. 6th and for other cases.
 
Mundial said:
We agree to disagree on the potential outcome of No. 2. Nonetheless, Garland was grossly derelict in his duties. However, he was happy to prosecute nobodies expeditiously for Jan. 6th and for other cases.
Click to expand...
The important point that you are missing -- procedurally -- is that there would have been two appeals to SCOTUS, not one.

The only way your fantasy scenario turns out differently is if SCOTUS issues a different opinion if election is further away -- and I think that is highly unlikely.
 
Mundial said:
We agree to disagree on the potential outcome of No. 2. Nonetheless, Garland was grossly derelict in his duties. However, he was happy to prosecute nobodies expeditiously for Jan. 6th and for other cases.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he definitely should have taken it easier on the other insurrectionists. 🥱
 
lawtig02 said:
Yeah, he definitely should have taken it easier on the other insurrectionists. 🥱
Click to expand...
Now now ;)

He went after the low hanging fruit who were the hoi polloi because they were safe and not politically charged prosecutions . And of course, they should have been prosecuted.

And there was no reason not to investigate Trump and his minions at the same time as the little people.
 
Just a huge waste of time and resources regardless....the story of our government and will cont under Trump
 
OGtruthhurts said:
Just a huge waste of time and resources regardless....the story of our government and will cont under Trump
Click to expand...
This is your worst take ever, and that's saying something.

It is absolutely the right thing to do to try to protect our democratic institutions and to punish criminals, irrespective of their power or influence. Indeed, it is even more important to the rule of law to show that power and influence are not a license to commit crimes without repercussion.

That it ultimately fell short did not make it a waste of time or resources. Doing the right thing is always necessary, even when you fail.

If you don't understand that, then you have my pity.
 
Calheel said:
Nope on your No. 2. There would have been a second appeal to SCOTUS after the immunity hearing and before trial. That would have taken another two years or so. There was no chance of this case going to trial.

Moreover, it is not as though this case would have made a difference in the election. The voters already had their mind made up about Jan 6th and the trial wasn't going to change any minds -- not that SCOTUS ever would have let the trial go forward before the election.
Click to expand...
I agree that this court would likely have spared Trump, but the more examples of their lack of integrity and independence, the better.
 
grimes70 said:
Agreed. I got into it with super on IC right from the get go as well. He kept talking about what a great judge Garland was. How level headed, dotting is and crossing ts, blah, blah. I kept telling him a judge and AG are two vastly different offices. It would make no difference to MAGA nation if he went full force investigating Trump or not so just do it. It took super 3+ years to finally acknowledge Garland wasn't the man for the job.
Click to expand...
i admitted that garland dropped the ball before he appointed jack smith. he should have appointed a special counsel that summer at the latest, i think. but there are caveats to come in another post.

i never acknowledged that garland wasn't the man for the job. i didn't think that was the discussion. the discussion was whether garland blew it with inaction, which isn't necessarily the same thing. if you want to make them the same thing, under the reasonable but not inevitable theory that a man is defined by the most important decision, that's fine. in that case, i will go back to the first point. not that it matters when a message board poster acknowledged something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top