General Discussion

ancianita

(39,846 posts)

64. Thanks for your post. I'll think on it.

Thu Dec 12, 2024, 11:17 AM

Dec 12

The problem with fixing a "broken" system -- which it isn't, except at court scheduling, so-called 'due process' delays, and court enforcement levels -- is to assume that you can stop "rule of men" presidents (and their ideologically aligned legal teams) from eroding "rule of law" systems. If you know of anything they haven't thought of by now, and know how they can stopped, please share them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Garland failed us again..... [View all] getagrip_already Dec 10 OP

But he would have made a great supreme Court Justice JanMichael Dec 10 #1

What is wrong with these people? Bluethroughu Dec 10 #3

I am beginning to suspect this was common practice in the old days. Baitball Blogger Dec 10 #5

I can only speak to the 1990's - my time in Washington TBF Dec 11 #43

They are human. And they are easily lured by money/power and/or threatened with blackmail/extortion. erronis Dec 11 #24

Not just the lure of bribes and pay offs Farmer-Rick Dec 11 #34

They have no fight in them ThePartyThatListens Dec 12 #68

I'm not so sure. He seems to prefer sitting on the fence and never rocking a boat. Lonestarblue Dec 11 #38

Institutions always cover their own asses rather than expose themselves, RockRaven Dec 10 #2

But needed edhopper Dec 10 #4

he was literally in court when voters effectively cut his prosecutions short bigtree Dec 10 #6

Really? getagrip_already Dec 10 #11

The DOJ has been slow walking the Paxton Sewa Dec 10 #18

Source? tia uponit7771 Dec 11 #40

Literally? Which court. What case? quakerboy Dec 11 #55

Garland's prosecutor, Tom Windom, was presenting the government's responses to immunity claims before Judge Chutkan bigtree Dec 12 #56

so, too little too late, and not literally at all. quakerboy Dec 12 #57

weird that you say nothing about the judges and judges who actually delayed the cases bigtree Dec 12 #58

Absolutely. Thank you. ancianita Dec 12 #60

He's a professorial weenie guy. Pipe and elbow patches Klarkashton Dec 10 #7

Hes a republican. Whalt would you expect... n/t slightlv Dec 10 #9

I've seen that mentioned a few times, but I can't find any confirmation in various bios and articles LauraInLA Dec 11 #32

No, I've just seen it when articles have been written about him. slightlv Dec 11 #39

Thanks; I'll keep looking and report ugh it's kind of moot. I found articles about Obama picking him as LauraInLA Dec 11 #45

He's actually a registered independent, with a bunch of milquetoast do-nothing centrist views that only serve to aid the Karasu Dec 11 #49

Times like this when I wish Tish James or Alvin Bragg were AG Jit423 Dec 10 #8

Maybe Garland was concerned he'd have to do some similar wiretapping. Silent Type Dec 10 #10

If it was simililarly illegal.... getagrip_already Dec 10 #12

To catch crooks like trump, Gaetz, and a host of government crimes. But you have a point. Silent Type Dec 10 #15

GARLAND is such a weak broke d*ck, it is just so dis appointed NotHardly Dec 10 #13

You don't know how the DOJ historically works. ancianita Dec 10 #14

Protecting, because the one sitting does not want to be investigated when he leaves. status que republianmushroom Dec 11 #28

"They can but they don't" Farmer-Rick Dec 11 #36

It's about ancianita Dec 11 #46

If the system doesn't work, it most definitely Farmer-Rick Dec 12 #59

Thanks for your post. I'll think on it. ancianita Dec 12 #64

link to story? LymphocyteLover Dec 10 #16

Would Biden have picked Garland if he weren't Obama's SC pick? LisaM Dec 10 #17

Obama had to pick someone he thought Republicans would confirm MadameButterfly Dec 11 #21

No, he didn't. I think maybe be thought we owed Garland something. LisaM Dec 11 #22

Doug Jones was an obvious excellent choice but MadameButterfly Dec 11 #41

Garland is a Republican, if he was working for Trump how would his behavior be different? Ranting Randy Dec 11 #19

Post removed Post removed Dec 11 #23

Nothing different. He went after Dems and let the coup keep going. onecaliberal Dec 11 #52

why was this removed? Grasswire2 Dec 11 #54

This message was self-deleted by its author LudwigPastorius Dec 11 #20

Nothing, but protecting an ex-president and DOJ. the legacy of Merrick the Meek. republianmushroom Dec 11 #25

Absolutely Rebl2 Dec 12 #61

Where's the full Jack Smith report ... Escape Dec 11 #26

Were is Mueller's report un-redacted ? republianmushroom Dec 11 #29

Guess we just have to be patient... Escape Dec 11 #35

Oh Rebl2 Dec 12 #62

No. He didn't AKwannabe Dec 11 #27

He's the worst Beckett Dec 11 #30

His spine is a mushy wet noodle Cthulu on call Dec 11 #31

Yep Rebl2 Dec 12 #63

Can he be held liable for... 2naSalit Dec 11 #33

so you want to bring a suit against him for not prosecuting Trump bigtree Dec 12 #65

Um... 2naSalit Dec 12 #66

it's untrue that he 'pissed away three years' bigtree Dec 12 #67

"Garland knew, and did nothing to prosecute or even investigate it" uncledad Dec 11 #37

Biden appointed him and could have fired him any time MichMan Dec 11 #42

A Picture of A Duck??? BurnDoubt Dec 11 #44

Garland nowforever Dec 11 #47

Caspar Milquetoast on tranquilizers. nt Xipe Totec Dec 11 #48

Stupid "gotcha" appointment HereForTheParty Dec 11 #50

at some point it just isn't failure Skittles Dec 11 #51

☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾THIS !!!☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾 uponit7771 Dec 12 #69

Garland did exactly what he was tasked to do Picaro Dec 11 #53