I can appreciate your disappointment in M. Garland. So many of us had high, high hopes that he would stand up forcefully and publicly for the rule of law and, at the very, very least, be transparent. When he was nominated for AG I remember saying to myself, "Perhaps things work out for the best--he may be more effective as an AG than he might have been as SC justice." I really don't want to find myself saying: "What the hell happened to Merrick Garland?" (Thanks for your ceaseless efforts to keep our spirits up. I really appreciate you and your managing editor.)
Your chastisement of Merrick Garland is some of the strongest I've seen from you. Is there anything you would suggest that we, as citizens, do to push the Attorney General toward more transparency?
I'd give Garland a little more time to prove himself. He may turn out to be a bust, but important things often take more time than we'd expect, and that turns out to be justified when the details become known.
As for the infrastructure "deal," I doubt that there is a deal, and if there is it's much too narrow and too small. Biden's original plan was just about right. Every time it gets narrowed, it gets less good.
How about giving Garland some breathing room. The person you want at DOJ is not the person who got the nod to be AG. He is not going to shoot from the hip or mouth off. If you don't see any positives from him sixty days from now then it will be time enough to start eating our own. I don't need to see us eating our own. My first choice was sally Yates I can't recall who Bob Hubbell should get the nod.
I can appreciate your disappointment in M. Garland. So many of us had high, high hopes that he would stand up forcefully and publicly for the rule of law and, at the very, very least, be transparent. When he was nominated for AG I remember saying to myself, "Perhaps things work out for the best--he may be more effective as an AG than he might have been as SC justice." I really don't want to find myself saying: "What the hell happened to Merrick Garland?" (Thanks for your ceaseless efforts to keep our spirits up. I really appreciate you and your managing editor.)
Your chastisement of Merrick Garland is some of the strongest I've seen from you. Is there anything you would suggest that we, as citizens, do to push the Attorney General toward more transparency?
I'd give Garland a little more time to prove himself. He may turn out to be a bust, but important things often take more time than we'd expect, and that turns out to be justified when the details become known.
As for the infrastructure "deal," I doubt that there is a deal, and if there is it's much too narrow and too small. Biden's original plan was just about right. Every time it gets narrowed, it gets less good.
How about giving Garland some breathing room. The person you want at DOJ is not the person who got the nod to be AG. He is not going to shoot from the hip or mouth off. If you don't see any positives from him sixty days from now then it will be time enough to start eating our own. I don't need to see us eating our own. My first choice was sally Yates I can't recall who Bob Hubbell should get the nod.