Merrick Garland: criticize the DOJ and you’re attacking democracy
“I certainly understand that some have chosen to attack the integrity of the Justice Department and its components and its employees by claiming that we do not treat like cases alike,” Garland said. “This constitutes an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy, and essential to the safety of the American people. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
No, it constitutes a criticism of that institution, which is not the same as an attack – a word with tremendous emotional valence. Surely Garland understands the difference, and he understands that blurring the two is what really undermines American democracy, or more accurately the American republic.
When an essential institution goes bad, that undermines the principles on which this country is based. Such institutions are not above criticism; au contraire. They must be criticized when criticism is warranted. And in this case there’s plenty of evidence making the criticism valid.
All the outraged huffing and puffing, and declarations from Garland himself that the accusations aren’t true, do not change that fact. They only reinforce it.
Keeping him from occupying a lifetime seat on SCOTUS looks better every day.
Why not just describe this as Garland attacking anyone who criticizes his department and his leadership of it.
Oh, well. Fauci is Science; Garland is Justice. And Kamala is Smart.
Larry, Moe, and Curly.
>>>Oh, well. Fauci is Science; Garland is Justice. And Kamala is Smart.
A Venn diagram of democracy for sure!
I wonder how much losing his seat on the Supreme Court to McConnell’s maneuvering has energized Garland’s hatchet man behavior, now that he can strike back at Republicans and conservatives.
Not that he is justified, of course. If he is willing to weaponize the DOJ partly as a personal vendetta, then he has disqualified himself for the Court.
It’s not an institution ‘essential to American democracy’ at all. Among those things which are essential would be probity in elections administration and integrity in the courts. The DoJ is hostile to both.
==
NB, federal policing and custodial services can be readily distributed between a half-dozen federal departments. The merger of policing, custody, and legal representation of the government found in the DoJ is almost unknown in state and local government. Here’s another thing we could do: limit the federal attorney-general and the U.S. attorneys to representation of the federal government as civil plaintiff and, now and again, civil defendant. For prosecuting criminal cases, federal legislation could deputize state attorneys-general, with federal police services making referrals to and working with those offices.
Not that he is justified, of course. If he is willing to weaponize the DOJ partly as a personal vendetta, then he has disqualified himself for the Court.
==
Garland was treated gently. Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh were not. I used to be a regular participant on Jonathan Turley’s boards. They were, years after the fact, enraged that they’d be thwarted from taking a piece off the board. While Garland’s behavior is appalling, keep in mind that partisan Democrats paying attention are perfectly content with it. The people who are complaining (like Turley and Alan Deshowitz) are already off the reservation.
he sends hordes to surveil parents at school board meetings, he orchestrates presecriptions of law abiding citizens, in so far as he actually runs the show, thats more in the perview of lisa monaco and kristen clarke, one an Russian truther, the other the devils advocate for cop killers, he has presided over hundreds of plantados in the dc gulag, and precious little attention to actual criminals
“. . . This constitutes an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy, and essential to the safety of the American people.” [Merrick Garland]
“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” [Samuel Johnson]
There is nothing new under the sun.
Wonder for someone who swears to protect the Constitution if he ever read it?
Skip (7:10 pm), no question that he’s read it, but through *extremely* ideological lenses. The man is utterly abhorrent [I’d write “deplorable”, but . . .].
His hubris shows a disturbing lack of self-awareness. And a clear sign he was unfit for the Court. Just as he is clearly unfit for his current job.
This is what happens when someone hates so deeply that he loses all respect for the citizens he is supposed to serve.
Just like Fauci did. Same hubris. Same hatred. Same disdain. Same failure.
His hubris shows a disturbing lack of self-awareness. And a clear sign he was unfit for the Court. Just as he is clearly unfit for his current job.
==
We live at a time when Democrats are sh!ts in their civic capacity if not in every area of their life. Among rank-and-file Democrats, it can be just fecklessness, not so in someone enmeshed in public life. The exceptions (e.g Bari Weiss) are pretty much off the reservation. What irritates me is the members of the old guard who pretend it isn’t happening. (Michael Dukakis and Jimmy Carter in particular).
Art Deco:
“While Garland’s behavior is appalling, keep in mind that partisan Democrats paying attention are perfectly content with it.”
Every morally decent, patriotic American is horrified. There may no longer be such a thing as a morally decent, patriotic American who votes Democrat.
Wonder for someone who swears to protect the Constitution if he ever read it?
==
For Democratic lawyers, the law is a set of tools to get what you want. It does not bind.
its over a 100 year old, so not really relevant,
He Who Must Not Name Other Commenters:
Obviously, I’m asking a conjectural question about Garland’s psychology, not how well his assessment of his Supreme Court nomination experience lines up with your assessment.
Some very good, albeit angry posts here. I understand. Garland showed his colors for me when he sicced the FBI on parents at a school board meeting in Virginia. That kind of weaponization of the DOJ/FBI is right out of early Soviet practice.
I imagine he’s fully aware of his own perfidiousness. He certainly knows the full breadth of the Biden’s corruption. So his hubris isn’t due to a lack of self-awareness, just self assuredness. He’s fairly certain that he’ll never be held to account for any of his subversions. He’s probably right.
I imagine he’s fully aware of [Garland’s] own perfidiousness.
Nonapod:
I don’t read minds but that’s my take too.
Garland reminds me of Eichmann, the hands-on Nazi running the Holocaust. Not that Garland is anywhere near Eichmann for evil, but he’s an accomplished bureaucrat with a mission which he will carry out with no moral compunctions.
As discussed in the Spectator, even the MSM (or a few members of it, anyway) is losing patience with this administration and its endless obfuscation, gaslighting and condescension. Serious, probing questions (the kind serious journalists used to ask, regardless of their personal politics) are what triggered Garland’s tantrum.
As one can imagine, there is no reference in the Constitution to the DOJ. According to ChatGPT, it was created by an Act of Congress in 1870, under President Ulysses S. Grant. The act was called the “Act to Establish the Department of Justice”.
That raises some interesting possibilities, depending on what authorities that act reserves to Congress.
Bureaucracies and bureaucrats don’t like to admit mistakes. They’re emboldened by the last few years, as Biden and his team have gotten away with lying about everything and denying everything. They seem to take accusations against their organizations personally and huff and puff their way through their denials. Remember Comey’s indignant “Don’t call us weasels”?
There’s also a feeling that institutions are terribly fragile. Do they really believe that, or is it just a defense mechanism they fall back on? Once we were told that all the revelations and exposure of scandals that we saw in the 60s and 70s made our institutions and our democracy stronger. Now it seems anything that might weaken the regime and possibly let Trump back in is an attack on “Our Democracy.”
I can’t attack the DOJ’s because they don’t have any.
“I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.” —Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I’ve said this before, at a fundamental level they don’t actually believe in any of the bill of rights. People like Garland really think the first 10 amendments were a mistake.
If he is willing to weaponize the DOJ partly as a personal vendetta, then he has disqualified himself for the Court.
And also any other governing body subject to the Constitution. Get him out of there, and with him all the other hyper-partisans currently conspiring against the non-progressive citizens of the country.
Long but worth reading.
The Act of 1870 was the genesis of a lot of problems with today’s DOJ and the federal bureaucracy in general, although it was intended to solve other problems at the time of passage.
The Law of Unintended Consequences knows no master.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1638&context=faculty_scholarship
“The Creation of the Department of Justice: Professionalization Without Civil Rights or Civil Service”
By what absolute contortion of the reasoning process does criticizing a bunch of unelected bureaucrats form an attack on democracy?
I mean, it’s not like the useless pox on the human race got elected, like STATE level DAs.
“By what absolute contortion…””
Indeed; but clearly, if “L’etat c’est moi” then wouldn’t that include “La Constitution, c’est moi”?
In fact for “Biden”, “Everysing, c’est moi”!!
(Including the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to blame Trump for all failures, i.e., for all of “Biden”‘s tremendous SUCCESSES, which are actually INTENTIONAL FAILURES…but which must be blamed on SOMEONE…which covering up demonstrates that “Biden” has at least some grip on reality…at least “political reality”…)
File under: Twist and shout!
“Surely Garland understands the difference…”
EXCEPT that Garland is a committed demagogue—a “wingman”/”handmaiden”—“dedicated to the proposition that” the Democrats MUST achieve TOTAL POWER and be able to STAY IN POWER at all costs…similar to all those other masterful uber-dishonest arsonists/saboteurs/revolutionaries/patriots in the “Biden” administration.
Short version: The ends justify the means—IOW nothing new here…though the context is alarming.
(To be sure, “Biden” must jump through hoops—exploiting the weaponized bureaucracies and “his” corrupt media pals to hide and cover up the above “little” detail….)
Related:
‘ Homeland agency expanded authority to wage ‘domestic surveillance and censorship,’ House report says;
‘ No “cyber component” needed for proposed “rapid response team” to parachute into local jurisdictions to help election officials with “informational threats,” agency subcommittee said. ‘—
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/dhs-intentionally-blurred-foreign-domestic-disinformation-expand
Art Deco – I would add Miguel Estrada to your list of wronged Republican appointees. Garland didn’t get a vote. Cry me a river. DC Circuit Judge Garland didn’t personally deserve worse, but his partisans certainly gave much worse than he received.
And I also agree about the intended audience. For a certain type of pudding-headed progressive drone, Garland’s “I am Democracy” schtick is all they need to hear. Unfortunately, a sizable portion of the adult population has now been “educated” to become pudding-headed progressive drones, all while congratulating themselves on how intelligent and virtuous they are.
Related (AKA, “More Fog of War from DOJ”…)
Just to review:
“Hunter Biden prosecutor told six witnesses he couldn’t charge outside Delaware: IRS whistleblower”—
https://nypost.com/2023/06/26/prosecutor-told-six-he-could-not-charge-hunter-biden-outside-del/
Key grafs:
“The federal prosecutor tasked with investigating Hunter Biden told at least six witnesses last year that he lacked authority to charge the first son outside Delaware and was denied special counsel status, according to an IRS whistleblower….
“Delaware US Attorney David Weiss made the shocking disclosure at an Oct. 7, 2022, meeting with top IRS and FBI officials — contradicting sworn testimony from Attorney General Merrick Garland, IRS supervisory agent Gary Shapley told the House Ways and Means Committee last month….”
One verdict is already in:
“Hunter Biden’s dirty plea deal needs to be put on hold while Merrick Garland is investigated”—
https://nypost.com/2023/06/26/hunter-bidens-dirty-plea-deal-needs-to-be-put-on-hold-while-merrick-garland-is-investigated/
No doubt the author of this piece is a Benighted Enemy of Democracy(TM)….
And to think that this hack could have been on the Supreme Court!
Art Deco says: “For Democratic lawyers, the law is a set of tools to get what you want. It does not bind.”
This is one of those things that everybody needs to recognize. I’d like to think that there are many exceptions among ordinary Democrats, but progressives in general have made it very clear that they don’t believe in or respect the constitutional system. They will appeal to it if it seems in their interests to do so, and trample it if that’s in their interests. What they want is constitutional. What they don’t want is not.
Much deserved anger, here. And some very choice and witty comments by regulars! Thank you.
Yes. The military defense (mostly Navy at the founding), Courts, a Foreign Office (“Department of State”) are almost all called forth by the Constitution. Plus, a Post Office, as per Ben Franklin. And a Treasury office for Federal spending. All together are the original institutions that were authorized.
For decades, beginning with the Post Office, libertarian thinkers have argued against such marginal institutions as the Post Office.
For example, in the second half of the 19th Century, a private mail carrier was putting the PO on the ropes, financially. Only a law passed by Congress, granting the PO a monopoly over first-class delivery, saved this Federal institution. It generously served rhe “spoils system” of ruling.
Interestingly, the owner of this competing company was himself a Constitutional lawyer.
Recent decades have seen rethinking about other unscrutinized Federal legacies, also not in the Constitution, like the FBI. In the 1990s, the Siege in Waco was the kindling for ire against the FBI and the so-called “Justice Department.”
The FBI originated in the early 20th Century in order to enforce the Mann Act, a federal law outlawing the transportation of women across state lines “for immoral purposes” as it was delicately put.
That is, the fear of “White slavery” or prostitution, often enough by black men, drove the passage of this Federal Act, supplementing local or state laws. And subsequently the FIB was created.
Federal level law enforcement remained controversial until the misadventure of prohibition of alcohol — or really the restriction of its public sale — combined with the newly dominant cities with the 1920s, and distrust of new anti-Protestant immigrant populations into American life inflated the demand for federal policing over the next two decades.
Only then, throughout and after the 1930s, did J Edgar Hoover and fictional Fed (albeit Treasury) heroes like Elliott Ness and his “Untouchables” squad enter the mainstream through popular culture in print and via radio serials.
That’s how we got the FBI — our Democrat Stasi enforcers — seen as somehow essential, and against any Constitutional mention or explicit Founding remit.
Thus, some libertarians have advocated for the devolution of its responsibilities to each of the states, completely, and therefore the abolition of the FIB as a Federal body
This policy proposal logically leads to the
similar scrutiny of the DOJ as another redundant and egregious Federal overreaching apparatus.
However, the problem of too many laws in our “Ham Sandwich Nation” — as law Prof Glenn Reynolds christened the now universal menace, and thus any average person was reckoned to commit two felonies a day in the 1990s, which later became three or four — means that Federal prosecution now requires the selective enforcement of the law.
In this way, “we done it to ourselves– we’ve enabled the prosecution of every Ruling Class feared dissenting group out of existence. And the death of organized political opposition is here, as authoritarian s become totalitarian.
Robert Heinlein’s remedy — an elected body charged with abolishing laws — gets more attractive to us every passing season of the year.
If we want to go this route, as a nation, then let us begin immediately with the states to set forth a model. Florida? Texas? North Carolina, perhaps?
Otherwise, I can foresee no remedy but mass violence.
Mac writes, “Art Deco says: “For Democratic lawyers, the law is a set of tools to get what you want. It does not bind.”
This is one of those things that everybody needs to recognize.
——————–
Yes, indeed. We really are at the end of our nation. As authorized and conceived.
Marxism 101, nice going Garland. He needs to read the US Constitution someday.
Democrats Other Justice
Sometimes you have to wonder if this sort of person is being blackmailed into behaving this way.
In this day and age of all info about anybody being available to hackers, maybe Garland has something he would rather keep secret.
The FBI has denied that they had any involvement in the recent Portland “Proud Boys” vs. “Patriot Front” confrontation.
Tellingly, the FBI statement begins with the words “We are appalled…”.
A professional and non-partisan organization would never put that sentiment up front. The leadership of such an organization would instinctively understand that their emotional reaction to such an allegation is utterly irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of it.
Their first concern would instead be to reassure the people they serve of their unwavering dedication to the objective application of the law.
As a result, I am convinced that they are indeed appalled… that they have been caught!