The question is WHY is Merrick Garland betraying our Democracy? WHY is the Biden administration allowing Merrick Garland to betray our Democracy?
As Cooper proposes, “So far, Garland is effectively conspiring with Trump to help him escape accountability.”
WTF is going on here?
He goes on to write, “By definition, the rule of law means that nobody, not even presidents or former presidents, should be able to break the law without consequence.
… Any nine-year-old could instantly understand this point, but jingoist chauvinism runs so deep in the liberal legal establishment that it is basically impossible for them to imagine American politicians being really corrupt and deserving of jail time.”
“… it seems fecklessness runs so deep in the Democratic Party that not even basic self-preservation can motivate them to enforce the law against the rich and powerful.
Garland should discover some principles or he should resign.”
I hope that the answer is that Garland is a good man in the wrong job. He is an institutionalist when the DOJ--and the nation--needs a leader. Being an appellate court judge may not have been good training to defend democracy in a time of crisis.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, Robert. But what are we supposed to do with an AG who by not being qualified to handle the imminent crisis facing us is, perhaps unintentionally, sabotaging our Democracy? “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
And happy Father’s Day to YOU! And this awesome Daily Edition newsletter is stellar among the fruits of your labor on behalf of your daughters and Managing Editor! A blessed family all around!
Thank you for the adjective “mealy-mouthed”, for calling the flagpole a metal bar, for trying to rouse Merrick Garland from his somnolent state, and for suggesting we only go down kicking and screaming. The current Democratic exercise in gentlemanly gamesmanship is doing us no favors.
If Manchin and Sinema had raised the possibility of modifying the filibuster, they would have gotten the Republican cooperation they wanted. Just as Manchin has softened his position on HR 1, he seems to be softening his position on the filibuster. He may be too little, too late for taking necessary steps to preserve American democracy.
As for Merrick Garland, Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court because he is conservative enough so that Republicans would vote to confirm him. And they would have if McConnell had allowed a vote. He's pretty conservative as Attorney General, too.
Hi, Len. Good to hear from you. I agree with you that Sinema and Manchin gave away the game at the start by saying they would not modify the filibuster. But at this point, modifications to the filibuster seem pointless. as long as McConnell can dictate what 50 Republicans will do, a filibuster that requires only 51 votes to cut off debate is an insurmountable roadblock.
Yes, the people need to grab power to preserve democracy. The Republican Party has given up on democracy. That happened a long time ago, but seems not to have been mentioned very often, at least not in those terms. In place of democracy, Republicans want oligarchy, where the mechanisms of democracy might still operate, but a favored group (in this case, whites) has the lion's share of power.
As for the attack on the Capitol, so far there have been 500 prosecutions brought, with more promised. That is not only a large number, but a substanial percentage of those who seem to have been involved in the attack directly. So, while I wish that Garland and the DOJ would be more vigorous publicly, I'm not at all certain that they are giving insufficient attention to what happened.
My concern is that the DOJ is charging low-level offenses--like trespass--for most of those charged. The broke into Congress to stop the count of the Electoral ballots. That isn't trespass; it's insurrection. So far as I know, the DOJ has not charged anyone with insurrection. 18 USC 2383 provides for 10 years in prison for anyone who "incites, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." Insurrection is defined as
I see your point. Well taken. The only reason I can think of for charging the lower-level crimes is not wanting the perpetrators to think they ever had a chance of over-turning the government. If that's happening, it's a mistake.
(Somewhat off-topic, your response to my comment seemed to be cut off in midstream. I don't know whether that's a technical problem with the platform, but I thought I'd mentiion it.)
Democrats want to play by the rules—to obtain a “moral advantage”—while Republicans play only to win. As Blow says, “Democrats are playing an honor game; Republicans are playing an endgame.”
WOW! That snaps these sleeping eyes wide open! Clarity in the political realm!
I focus this differently and with a sharper edge, that BOTH parties are going for righteousness, and not the good kind. Each wants to “be right and make the other wrong”, “dominate and avoid being dominated” “win at all costs and have the other lose”, “be justified and invalidate the other” and workable is the price BOTH are willing to pay.
Life can be played for only one of two outcomes. Either you play for “aliveness” where the experience of love, health, happiness, and full self expression flourish OR you play for righteousness at the expense of aliveness. It really comes down to this.
While to me it’s obvious what the Republican Party is playing for, it’s clear to me that the Democrats are attending the same party and only talking about honor.
Actually, being honorable is a state of Being. States of being are not things one puts on like a suit or costume. Being isn’t a trifling thing. While most play at and pretend and even work hard at selling others and ourselves the story that we have arrived or achieved a state better than or above the common striving for righteousness where honor be damned in the desperate attempt at winning or being right or dominating or avoiding domination, etc., truth be told, few follow the old dictum “to thy own self be true”.
While saying this likely raises many hackles, each one of us can only speak the truth for ourselves as contradictory as that sounds coming after what’s written above.
why do I need to read these words by someone who has never made the contribution to our country that has been made by Judge Merrick Garland, who prosecuted the Oklahoma bombing terrorists. ". Garland should discover some principles, or he should resign." It is beneath your dignity to quote a loud mouth know-nothing do-nothing would be journalist Ryan Cooper. i don't need to read such drivel
I guess I was hoping given the background of the editor of the newsletter that there would be a more respected source for the injudicious language quoted. Your observation is truly not helpful.
"I say dispense with the phony, wish-driven narrative Democrats are selling. Go down screaming and fighting. They need to go on the record and speak plainly: The Republican Party has given up on the idea of a true and full democracy."
I have already stated here that after decades of fighting for Democratic candidates, I have given up because I am no longer willing to "do the work" if they themselves can't be bothered. If Democrats actually "scream and fight," I will reconsider my position. Until then, I consider them complicit.
The question is WHY is Merrick Garland betraying our Democracy? WHY is the Biden administration allowing Merrick Garland to betray our Democracy?
As Cooper proposes, “So far, Garland is effectively conspiring with Trump to help him escape accountability.”
WTF is going on here?
He goes on to write, “By definition, the rule of law means that nobody, not even presidents or former presidents, should be able to break the law without consequence.
… Any nine-year-old could instantly understand this point, but jingoist chauvinism runs so deep in the liberal legal establishment that it is basically impossible for them to imagine American politicians being really corrupt and deserving of jail time.”
“… it seems fecklessness runs so deep in the Democratic Party that not even basic self-preservation can motivate them to enforce the law against the rich and powerful.
Garland should discover some principles or he should resign.”
Oh… so that’s WTF is going on here!
I hope that the answer is that Garland is a good man in the wrong job. He is an institutionalist when the DOJ--and the nation--needs a leader. Being an appellate court judge may not have been good training to defend democracy in a time of crisis.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, Robert. But what are we supposed to do with an AG who by not being qualified to handle the imminent crisis facing us is, perhaps unintentionally, sabotaging our Democracy? “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
And happy Father’s Day to YOU! And this awesome Daily Edition newsletter is stellar among the fruits of your labor on behalf of your daughters and Managing Editor! A blessed family all around!
Thank you for the adjective “mealy-mouthed”, for calling the flagpole a metal bar, for trying to rouse Merrick Garland from his somnolent state, and for suggesting we only go down kicking and screaming. The current Democratic exercise in gentlemanly gamesmanship is doing us no favors.
If Manchin and Sinema had raised the possibility of modifying the filibuster, they would have gotten the Republican cooperation they wanted. Just as Manchin has softened his position on HR 1, he seems to be softening his position on the filibuster. He may be too little, too late for taking necessary steps to preserve American democracy.
As for Merrick Garland, Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court because he is conservative enough so that Republicans would vote to confirm him. And they would have if McConnell had allowed a vote. He's pretty conservative as Attorney General, too.
Hi, Len. Good to hear from you. I agree with you that Sinema and Manchin gave away the game at the start by saying they would not modify the filibuster. But at this point, modifications to the filibuster seem pointless. as long as McConnell can dictate what 50 Republicans will do, a filibuster that requires only 51 votes to cut off debate is an insurmountable roadblock.
Yes, the people need to grab power to preserve democracy. The Republican Party has given up on democracy. That happened a long time ago, but seems not to have been mentioned very often, at least not in those terms. In place of democracy, Republicans want oligarchy, where the mechanisms of democracy might still operate, but a favored group (in this case, whites) has the lion's share of power.
As for the attack on the Capitol, so far there have been 500 prosecutions brought, with more promised. That is not only a large number, but a substanial percentage of those who seem to have been involved in the attack directly. So, while I wish that Garland and the DOJ would be more vigorous publicly, I'm not at all certain that they are giving insufficient attention to what happened.
My concern is that the DOJ is charging low-level offenses--like trespass--for most of those charged. The broke into Congress to stop the count of the Electoral ballots. That isn't trespass; it's insurrection. So far as I know, the DOJ has not charged anyone with insurrection. 18 USC 2383 provides for 10 years in prison for anyone who "incites, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." Insurrection is defined as
I see your point. Well taken. The only reason I can think of for charging the lower-level crimes is not wanting the perpetrators to think they ever had a chance of over-turning the government. If that's happening, it's a mistake.
(Somewhat off-topic, your response to my comment seemed to be cut off in midstream. I don't know whether that's a technical problem with the platform, but I thought I'd mentiion it.)
Democrats want to play by the rules—to obtain a “moral advantage”—while Republicans play only to win. As Blow says, “Democrats are playing an honor game; Republicans are playing an endgame.”
WOW! That snaps these sleeping eyes wide open! Clarity in the political realm!
I focus this differently and with a sharper edge, that BOTH parties are going for righteousness, and not the good kind. Each wants to “be right and make the other wrong”, “dominate and avoid being dominated” “win at all costs and have the other lose”, “be justified and invalidate the other” and workable is the price BOTH are willing to pay.
Life can be played for only one of two outcomes. Either you play for “aliveness” where the experience of love, health, happiness, and full self expression flourish OR you play for righteousness at the expense of aliveness. It really comes down to this.
While to me it’s obvious what the Republican Party is playing for, it’s clear to me that the Democrats are attending the same party and only talking about honor.
Actually, being honorable is a state of Being. States of being are not things one puts on like a suit or costume. Being isn’t a trifling thing. While most play at and pretend and even work hard at selling others and ourselves the story that we have arrived or achieved a state better than or above the common striving for righteousness where honor be damned in the desperate attempt at winning or being right or dominating or avoiding domination, etc., truth be told, few follow the old dictum “to thy own self be true”.
While saying this likely raises many hackles, each one of us can only speak the truth for ourselves as contradictory as that sounds coming after what’s written above.
Happy Father’s Day Robert!!
Bravo!
why do I need to read these words by someone who has never made the contribution to our country that has been made by Judge Merrick Garland, who prosecuted the Oklahoma bombing terrorists. ". Garland should discover some principles, or he should resign." It is beneath your dignity to quote a loud mouth know-nothing do-nothing would be journalist Ryan Cooper. i don't need to read such drivel
I guess I was hoping given the background of the editor of the newsletter that there would be a more respected source for the injudicious language quoted. Your observation is truly not helpful.
Then don't
"I say dispense with the phony, wish-driven narrative Democrats are selling. Go down screaming and fighting. They need to go on the record and speak plainly: The Republican Party has given up on the idea of a true and full democracy."
I have already stated here that after decades of fighting for Democratic candidates, I have given up because I am no longer willing to "do the work" if they themselves can't be bothered. If Democrats actually "scream and fight," I will reconsider my position. Until then, I consider them complicit.
So if you have abandoned Democrats, who are you going to work with to stop the GOP?
I’m going to vote straight D as always. That’s it.