115
White House frustration with Garland grows
(www.politico.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
115 points (96.7% liked)
politics
19086 readers
4214 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
Federalist Society plant Merrick Garland has been working to get Trump back in the entire time
Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society are such a dire threat to Americans. They'd happily burn the entire country to the ground as long as they're left to baptize the ashes.
I had this discussion back on Reddit. Seeing this upvoted, maybe it's time to do a misinformation check.
The guy has a Federalist society profile page because he moderated or appeared on some panels, if I recall. The Federalist society, not him, set up that page, and it was pretty normal for unbiased/unaffiliated lawyers to participate in Federalist panels.
The existence of that page has morphed into some conspiracy or evidence of secret right-wing intentions.
I don't think he's a right wing plant. He seems like just a typical "don't blame me" milquetoast career centrist. Do you have some other evidence or is this it?
Maybe the problem is it's too normal and uncontroversial for people to openly associate or be counted among fascists?
Maybe just maybe his comfortability with fascism was a sure sign that he should not be the one to prosecute them.
It's not so simple, unfortunately. I mean, what exactly is "his comfortability with fascism"? What are you referring to?
In law school in the 2000s, the Federalist Society had student arms and out of curiosity I attended some meetings. It was clearly not for me, but it was not the group it is today. It wasn't good, but it was within the normal civil-debate range of "ok, as a polite apolitical gesture, I will attend or participate upon request." And I see no evidence Garland did anything but that, at a time before before this fascist strain became the dominant one it is in the GOP today. It would certainly mean something different if he participated in 2018 or 2024.
So all I'm saying is: if there is some specific affirmative thing Garland has done that makes him a fascist or secret Republican conspirator, or whatever, great, let's see it. I have no skin in this game, I just think if people hear things too often without them being tested then they start to believe them, even if there's no evidence. So, let's test it.
The DNC refusing to not primary Biden is doing a fine job of getting Trump reelected.
The DNC is unironically retarded
Dude he was a nominee of Obama for the Supreme Court that Republicans blocked....
Mitch McConnell filibusters his own bills. Garland was a suggestion from Orin Hatch. That Obama nominated him says nothing more about him other than Obama was trying to naively extend an olive branch to Republicans. That a republican would think he would be appropriate to nominate. Is a rather scathing indictment.
So there were plenty of Republicans who stood up for the right thing, from McCain to Liz Cheney and Kinzinger. Hell there have been loads of Trump-appointed judges who upheld the integrity of the 2020 election.
At the end of the day, Obama had no choice BUT to find some sort of moderate because he needed Republican Senate approval... Which ultimately, he didn't get anyway (in a similar manner to what's going on with the border legislation now).
Reminder that Progressive org MoveOn also endorsed Garland.
All that being said, nobody has yet to point out a single substantive thing that Garland has done wrong. Just blind speculation. because obviously we all wish Justice could happen overnight.
No there weren't. They didn't stand up for the right thing. McCain is literally part of the problem. And dead. Liz Cheney is a horrible person from a horrible family. They don't support Trump personally. Because he attacked them personally. They were 100% behind him carrying out all the horrible xenophobic, fascistic things the party stands for. Barely even able to meekly object for more than a vote or two. And only when things are specifically about Trump himself.
McCain prevented millions from losing healthcare and having the ACA overturned. When idiot Tea Party / Trump supporter-types criticized Obama, McCain defended him. McCain also helped pass the McCain-Feingold bipartisan campaign finance reform act. A perfect soul? Certainly not, but if all of Republicans were like him we wouldn't be where we are today.
We do not call people horrible simply by association with who their family is; that is absurd. Liz Cheney stood up and did the right thing in denouncing Trump. Again a perfect person by no means, but also not outright evil either.
Trump attacked many people personally like Ted Cruz and DeSantis and they still kiss Trump's ass.
Either way, my main points remain.
Yes but McCain didn't do it to keep millions from losing access. He literally did it out of spite to get back at his own party as they turned against him. It wasn't out of some principle he held. He literally voted against the ACA in the first place.
And yes everyone remembers that one time he meekly corrected one of his lunatic voters. That doesn't make up for everything else. Or make him a good person.
Mccain feingold wasn't a horrible piece of legislation either. It was surprising to see Mr. Keating five attached to it. But again, it does not neutralize or negate everything else regardless.
Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney's daughter. Attacked her own sister. She's a piece of shit just like her father. Mary Cheney may have been the only one to escape the family reputation. Liz only went against Trump again out of spitefulness because Trump had been attacking her because she did not capitulate to him completely. At one point, Liz Cheney bragged that sheed voted with Trump 100% of the time. In reality she hadn't. But the only times she hadn't were things particularly relating back to Trump himself. Because it wasn't out of principle, it was out of spite.
I never said that everyone Trump attacked turned on him. Yes, Ted Cruz is a despicable submissive little husk. That doesn't change any of the other points. It just goes to show how sad and pathetic people like Ted Cruz are. And why they're in the Republican party.
Either way, either points still don't stand.
Maybe you're right; maybe they're not stellar people. However:
These weren't my main points.
Regardless of their motives, their actions are what matter; for as I said, there were many Trump supporters who were spited by Trump but who still kissed his ass. For whatever reason that you and I cannot elucidate, these individuals broke with the rest -- often to their own downfall -- unlike other individuals, again such examples being DeSantis or Cruz. If enough people in the Republican party at least had this level of self-respect, then perhaps we wouldn't be where we are today (though an argument can be made such people enabled Trump to be created like Frankenstein's monster.)
My main points:
Obama didn't have Senate control; he was never going to get an idyllic progressive into the Supreme Court under a Republican Senate; he couldn't even get a formerly-bipartisan supported candidate like Garland into the Supreme Court -- This point remained untouched.
There is substantively NOTHING Garland is doing wrong and every complaint I've thus far seen has been pure speculation from people who are not legal experts and are just impatient -- This point, too, remains untouched.
Obama was basically a Republican from 1980, my guy. Even Obamacare is romneycare and a right wing policy example.
Obama is not progressive he is not left. He is a corporate liberal.
Those are not the same thing.
This isn't 1980 anymore, though, my friend.
Shit, I'd take a 1980s Republican right about now, which speaks to the fragility of our nation at the moment.
None of this changes my point and the claim, "Merrick Garland has been working to get Trump back in the entire time" is entirely unsubstantiated bold-faced speculation. A complete non-sequitur.
Look at it another way: Democrats may be 1980s Republicans, but modern-day Republicans are 2024 Republicans, which basically means the banner of neo-nazi, ultra-right right extremists and a platform that is entirely Anti-Democrat as much as it is Anti-Democracy.
Democrats basically marginalized the GOP away by absorbing their most rational political platform, topped off with a little more social liberty and justice. It has actually been working quite effectively at making the Republicans irrelevant. So with that (1) Yes, at this stage of the game with the party endorsed by neo-nazis, I'll take the 1980s Republican, and (2) Sending the Republicans the way of the Whigs could very well open up a vacuum for the Democrats to assume the center-right position and a new truly leftist party to fill the void. (Though is is all probably predicated on massive campaign finance / election reform which again, will only ever come through the Democrats and never Republicans).
He wasnt basically a republican, he directly said in a 2012 interview his policies would be mainstream republican during Reagan, And he, like all other Presidents, continued Reaganomics