Experts: DOJ has "sufficient evidence" to probe Clarence Thomas — but Garland won't go for it
Experts: DOJ has "sufficient evidence" to probe Clarence Thomas — but Garland won't go for it
DOJ could uncover false statements and tax issues flagged by senators but AG seems to lack the will, professors say.
You're viewing a single thread.
Look at what you get when you try to appease Republicans by appointing a federalist society judge to be AG in exchange for 0 Republican votes.
Wait, Garland is Federalist Society? That explains so much!
He is not. If he were, why would the republicans have stonewalled his nomination for Supreme Court Justice? It doesn't make sense.
He has participated in some events, like debates, with the federalist society, but he is not a member.
Do all the research in the world and you will not find any connection there.
They stonewalled him because they were determined to block anyone Obama nominated. He put up a milquetoast right leaning centrist as an act of conciliation. They didn't give a shit. They would have blocked anyone Obama nominated.
The GOP have stonewalled bills THEY WROTE once they realized Democrats wanted to pass it. They obstructed a border bill beyond their wildest dreams because it was under Biden. That question isn't really a mystery.
This isn't a bill and this wasn't 2024. Mitch McConnell was responsible for stonewalling Garland's appointment to the supreme court. Trump was responsible for killing the bill. Trump is an idiot, McConnell is just evil. They don't play the same way at all. They almost certainly would have passed that legislation if Trump hadn't interfered.
It was a lifetime appointment to the most powerful position in the country, assuming you have a like-minded majority. If he were a federalist, it would have been a gift to them on a silver platter.
We're dealing with counterfactuals here, but attributing their increasingly irrational behavior today to all their actions in the past is a terrible way to interpret history.
Thanks. I guess is was being a little credulous when I read that.
No you weren't, their argument is specious at best.
why would the republicans have stonewalled his nomination for Supreme Court Justice? It doesn't make sense.
Republicans blocked their own bills, and bills they dropped over because the Democrats supported it.
Republicans have no morals, ethics or values outside of power, so assuming they wouldn't vote against the exact shit they want out of spite just means you're not paying attention enough.
E: the federalist part is correct tho, he's not one of them afaik.
You’re applying the behavior of Republicans under Trump in 2024 to their behavior in 2016 under Mitch McConnell, which is not a fair way to interpret history.
The Republicans’ primary goal has always been to consolidate power, a strategy evident even before Trump’s influence. This was evident in 2016 when McConnell blocked Merrick Garland’s appointment. It wasn’t just about denying Obama a win; it was about maintaining control over the Supreme Court. By holding the position open, they ensured a conservative majority with Gorsuch’s appointment in 2017.
While their actions under Trump have often seemed erratic and without principle, the decision to block Garland was a calculated, strategic move rooted in the same pursuit of power. Viewing their behavior solely through the lens of recent events, like the border bill, ignores the broader, consistent strategy they have employed over the years.
The move to block Garland was a clear demonstration of their long-term strategy to secure judicial power, not an isolated act of obstructionism. This context is crucial for understanding the continuity in their approach to power, rather than seeing it as a sudden shift in behavior.
They behaved in very similar ways back then too, remember when McConnell himself filibustered his own bill once Democrats supported it back on 2015?
It's a decade+ long pattern of behavior, they've only gotten worse about it and stopped trying to hide the shit they've been doing already.
Except that it’s not true
Thanks. I guess is was being a little credulous when I read that.