Attorney General Merrick Garland

President Biden made the right pick to lead the Department of Justice. Progressives will still have their say over much of Department policy.


Today it's been reported that President Biden will nominate Judge Merrick Garland to be the next Attorney General of the United States. For reasons I highlighted back in November, this was a wise choice.

Judge Garland is well-respected on both sides of the aisle and [should] be a relatively non-controversial Attorney General nominee. More importantly, his stature and independence would give him a degree of credibility more "political" nominees might lack. If President-elect Biden is looking for an Ed Levi-like figure to take over the helm at Justice, it would be hard to do better than Judge Garland.  Indeed, given the tumult and controversy within the Department of Justice these past four years, a figure like Merrick Garland might be just what the Department needs.

I don't praise the Garland pick because of my policy preferences. As a former Justice Department official, former prosecutor, and judge, Garland has been more pro-government and less liberty-oriented than I would like, and certainly more so than some potential alternatives. In 2021, however, the AG pick is about more than policy preferences.

In normal times, any of the names floated as potential AGs would have been perfectly fine nominees for a Democratic Administration. Yet these are not normal times, and Judge Garland is uniquely qualified to lead the Justice Department in this divided time. Unlike former Senator Doug Jones, Judge Garland has not run for partisan political office and has managerial experience within the Department. Unlike former Acting AG Sally Yates, Garland will not be viewed as a partisan figure, will not have to recuse from matters such as the oversight of the Durham investigation, and (perhaps most importantly) will be able to make decisions on weighty matters, such as how to handle claims of alleged illegality by Trump Administration officials or even of President Trump, without undue suspicion of his motives.

Some progressives are expressing disappointment with the pick, but I think their complaints are unwarranted. The early indication is that the Biden Administration will tap attorneys with clear progressive pedigrees for many of the more policy-oriented positions within the department. The AP is reporting Biden will nominate former Obama Administration Homeland Security advisor Lisa Monaco as Deputy Attorney General, former Justice Department civil rights chief Vanita Gupta as Associate Attorney General and Kristen Clarke, president of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as Assistant AG for Civil Rights.

The Gupta and Clarke picks, in particular, should give progressives confidence that the DOJ will lean left on the policy matters they care most about. On day-to-day matters that do not reach the AG's desk, they will be calling the shots. Further, with Judge Garland as AG, progressives will actually have more room to maneuver. In a Nixon-goes-to-China way, Garland's position as AG will help shield their efforts and enable the Department to do more to advance progressive priorities than it would be otherwise.

It is also significant that, by nominating Judge Garland to be AG, Biden will free up a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The odds-on favorite to fill the seat has to be Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a rumored Supreme Court short-lister should Justice Breyer retire. Yet this is unlikely to be the last D.C. Circuit vacancy President Biden will get to fill, so pay attention to who gets considered now. Runners up for this vacancy would likely be at the top of the list should Judges Tatel, Rogers, or Henderson take senior status. There are lots of highly qualified contenders for this court, including quite a few administrative law academics.

NEXT: Online Criticism of Retirement Community + Picketing Lead to Ohio Criminal “Harassment” Prosecution

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Don’t think that the Thief in Chief is going to have an easy time at *anything* — I suspect that Cruz and others will raise tough questions for even Garland.

    As we speak, in DC right now:

    Yea, the Rubicon has been crossed and you’re going to see four years of this.

    1. Yep. I’m actually at the point where I would morally approve of targeted acts of terror by patriots trying to preserve their country.

      1. You’d require morals before you could do so. Hard fail.

      2. Folks, the middle is ceasing to hold. I don’t know what part of that sentence you can’t understand…

        1. Absolutely. Hilarious.

          Two things, Ed :

          (1) You’ve now mangled Yeats in three or four threads now. For the record, the relevant lines from The Second Coming are :

          Turning and turning in the widening gyre
          The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
          Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
          Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
          The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
          The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
          The best lack all conviction, while the worst
          Are full of passionate intensity.

          It’s a damn good poem (though I’m more of a Wally Stevens man myself). Also : “The best lack all conviction, while the worst
          Are full of passionate intensity” seems to be a Trump reference to me. Yeats was a very prescient guy.

          (2) What the frigg’n hell do you – Dr. Ed – know about the “middle”? You wouldn’t recognize the middle if it was a twenty-ton meteor that dropped on you from the sky. The “middle” is a whole universe away from the freakshow twirling around your brain….

      3. You guys can whimper all you want, but you will comply, with the rest of the clingers (including the Conspirators).

        Your betters will see to it.

        How many Republican votes will Pres. Biden need to put anyone he wishes on a federal bench? My expectation: zero. How many will he get? A few.

        Carry on, bigots. But only so far as better Americans permit.

    2. While you bravely sit in your basement and cheer in the name of sedition and insurrection.

      Bravo Ed. Way to clearly demonstrate your contempt for our country.

      1. One man’s sedition is another man’s patriotism.

        1. There were literally people waving Confederate flags inside the Capitol building. That may be “patriotic”, but for the wrong country.

          1. The Confederate flag is now a symbol of rebellion. It’s not of another country.

            1. LOL. It was always a sign of rebellion. That’s the whole point.

              1. Yes, but not of rebellion against the United States, but against the current United States government.

                1. Hate to tell you this, bud, but the Confederates tried to secede from the US and start their own country. This isn’t exactly one of the contentious points of Civil War history.

                  1. I’m talking about today, you fool.

          2. Did you similarly complain about Marxist flags? How about Marxist professors? How about the Marxist BLM? How about the destruction and attempted and actual murder by Antifa?

            1. Couple of differences between BLM and the Confederacy.

              1. Yeah. The Confederacy was a movement of the original English colonists trying to preserve their autonomy.

                BLM is a movement of low-IQ Africans.

                1. Was my fellow tribesman Judah Benjamin an original English colonist? That would come as some shock to the original English colonists.

      2. “sedition and insurrection”

        A mostly peaceful protest, please.

        1. Sedition does not require violence, and Ed has clearly demonstrated that he’s ok with it happening anyway.

          Please, yourself.

          1. Jason, is a weatherman who successfully warns people that a hurricane is coming “ok with what happens” when it does?

        2. Right, as I’m watching news footage of protesters storming the Capitol building.

          1. The left [including the DC mayor] cheered on the the mostly peaceful rioting in the spring and summer, you don’t have any moral ground to oppose this mostly peaceful rioting now.

            1. EXACTLY!!!!!

              For 30 years, I’ve been asking “what happens when the other side does the same thing(s).”

              The presumption always was that it just wouldn’t happen — and now it is. And likely will continue to…

            2. Morals….from a progressive? That is an oxymoron, Bob.

              It has started.

              1. Whatever the clingers start, their betters will finish. With prejudice.

                The Volokh Conspirators can ankle-nip as much as they like, though.

              2. You’re better than that Commenter.

                Not Ed or Bob, but you sure are.

                1. Sarcastr0, it has started. I told you it would.

                  1. The right-wing bigots have started it. Better Americans will finish it. The degree of pain you sustain will be your call. But you will comply, with the rest of the superstitious hayseeds, Republican bigots, and conservative losers.

                  2. No, these assholes have agency.

                2. We kept telling you that every action triggers a reaction but you thought BLM and Antifa would help accomplish your goals so you waved them away.

                  1. Didn’t I predict that the Capital would be shut down today?
                    (I meant to if I didn’t.)

                    1. This made me laugh.

                  2. Your betters will be cleaning their shoe soles with your tongue, Bob from Ohio. You losers have never accomplished or stuck with much of anything worthwhile throughout your deplorable, desolate lives.

                  3. I very much doubt that one has anything to do with the other. Trump has whipped his supporters into a fury by convincing them that it was a stolen election. They’d be rioting even if there had been no demonstrations in the spring and summer, violent or otherwise.

            3. Bob, those of us who opposed violent protest in the spring, while recognizing the right to protest of those who actually were peaceful, have all kinds of moral ground to stand on. Usually your whataboutism is merely tiresome; this time around it’s posing an existential threat.

              1. Its not “whataboutism”, its just discussing how precedent works.

                The time to stop today was 6 months ago.

              2. Nothing’s on fire yet. These protests are far more peaceful than those previously supported.

              3. What’s not peaceful about this protest?

                Has anyone been seriously hurt? Has anything been set on fire?

                1. Well, someone has been shot.

                  The protestors are breaking into the Capitol.

                  Peaceful. You’re scum, too.

                  1. And now we can start the MAGA Lives Matter “peaceful” protests…

                  2. Why am I scum?

                    I don’t support people getting shot. It’s not clear who was shot by whom, except it wasn’t anyone in law enforcement who was shot.

                    1. It’s not a peaceful protest.

                      This is exactly what you lied that the Floyd protests all were.

                    2. The Floyd protests caused over a billion dollars in damages….

                      But sure, keep telling yourself they were “peaceful”

          2. Mostly peaceful.

    3. I particularly like what the young lady says at 0:05 – 0.06.
      The middle has ceased to hold…

    4. That is nothing to celebrate, Dr. Ed; it is something to mourn.

    5. The Thief in Chief is leaving office in two weeks. Please stop pretending otherwise.

    6. Don’t think that the Thief in Chief is going to have an easy time at *anything* — I suspect that Cruz and others will raise tough questions for even Garland.

      Apparently you missed yesterday’s elections; Cruz and others can whine all they want, but they have no ability to do anything.

      1. They (Team R) can act within the confines of the rules. There isn’t much within the rules Team R can actually do.

        For starters, every cabinet and judicial nominee will require a cloture vote. That is a given. Not much, granted….but it drags out the process. No blue slips will be returned by Team R senators. Every parliamentary maneuver to slow and delay will be deployed.

        In short, all of the deviant behavior Team D normalized in the last four years will be used against them.

        1. Blue slips? The Republicans abandoned blue slips a few years ago.

          The Democrats will set, enforce, and benefit from the rules. The Republicans will watch, comply, and whine.

          This is as it should be, and as it will be in America, at least until conservatives ditch the backwardness, belligerent ignorance, and bigotry.

          1. Or kick arse in the 2022 election, and then watch the Dems cry.

          2. Arthur, that is actually not the case. Blue slips still used for district court nominees. Blue Slips are not used for circuit court nominees because circuit courts span multiple states.

            1. There are fewer bigots in our electorate America every day. Fewer superstitious hayseeds. Fewer rural rubes. Fewer stale-thinking Republicans. Fewer Whites.

              You will win nothing.

              You will comply. We will win.

              1. Kirkland, I just saw a picture of more people than were there for MLK2’s “I have a dream” speech.

                Critical mass has been reached — and now with a victim — things will get ugly.

            2. “Arthur, that is actually not the case. Blue slips still used for district court nominees. Blue Slips are not used for circuit court nominees because circuit courts span multiple states.”

              That is not my senator’s understanding. I will rely on his account.

          3. You realize that we produce all of your food, energy, and clean water, don’t you?

            Do you leftist fairies think the food you eat just magically appears in your Whole Foods or Instacart delivery?

            1. What do you mean “we”? Since when did you produce anything?

            2. Uhh. California produces twice as much food as any other state. California, Illinois, Minnesota and Washington alone are responsible for about 25% of the US’s total food production. Blue states can feed themselves just fine.

              1. You realize that the areas of California that produce the food are bright red, don’t you? And that, if they had their druthers, would secede from the blue coastal areas?

              2. California produces grapes, nuts, and a few other high-value low volume luxury goods. They produce no significant quantity of any staple food product – not wheat, corn, beef, chicken, pork, and so on.

                You can’t feed 40 million people on $5 billion worth of almonds.

                1. Maybe you need to do some more research. California is largest dairy producer in the US.

        2. What you are describing is an escalation over what the Dems have ever done.

          1. Sarcastr0, that is not the case, Team D did all of those things and more. They glorified and celebrated it. Now it will be done to them.

            1. Every cabinet and judicial nominee will require a cloture vote – not a Dem tactic. Plenty of judges were let through without one.

              No blue slips will be returned by Team R senators. Also not a Dem tactic; though largely because the GOP stopped asking or caring about blue slips.

              Every parliamentary maneuver to slow and delay will be deployed. Also not a Dem tactic. They threatened to do that with Kavanaugh and didn’t.

              Maybe it’s because I live by DC, but this information of yours is trivially untrue.

              1. No Sarcastr0, look up the number of cloture votes for POTUS Trump’s cabinet and judicial nominees. Compare to every POTUS in the past. Better yet, go to SenateCloakroom twitter feed and do a count of the number of times cloture was filed. Then come back.

                Were there some voice votes? Yep, the Obama holdovers that POTUS Trump renominated.

    7. And now we will have MAGA Lives Matter as well.

      Fair’s fair — and you’re going to see the same tactics that were employed by BLM and I am neither approving nor disapproving of it, merely stating that there is something known as “precedent” in this country.


  2. One thing is for sure. Every supposedly “moderate” Democrat will fall in line on everything important.

    1. Ummmm… Today might have changed that…

      1. Hopefully it makes the left reconsider their bizarre gun grabbing schemes.

  3. Given the Republican disaster in Georgia, there is little doubt that Garland will be confirmed.

    Something occurred to me today. Trump is now like Hitler. Not the genocidal megalomaniac of 1939 that was about to conquer most of Europe, but the pathetic, self-absorbed loser hiding in a bunker in 1945, continuing to deny the reality of his defeat. Luckily for him, no need to for him to put a bullet in his head. Retirement to Mar-A-Lago and golf will do the trick.

    1. Wrong analogy — try Andrew Jackson in 1825.
      He too had an election stolen from him.

      1. No, you racist treasonweasel, he did not. He lost the election fair and square — like Trump this year — and had a tantrum about it — like Trump this year.

        1. Reducing yourself to namecalling?

          This election was rigged. the 1824 one involved a deal for SoS.
          Facts matter…

          And I understand that the Mayor has issued a 6 PM curfew which SHE DIDN’T DO WHEN THE BITCHY LITTLE MARXISTS WERE RUNNING WILD…

          1. “This election was rigged.”

            That is a lie, and treasonweasel is still too polite for you, though it did make me laugh.

          2. You’re disgusting. Odious.

          3. This election was rigged.

            It was not. The only fraud anyone found in this election — the only fraud — was a couple of Trump supporters voting multiple times in Pennsylvania. This was a fair election, and Trump was resoundingly elected by all decent, patriotic Americans.

            the 1824 one involved a deal for SoS.
            Facts matter…

            There was indeed much whining from Jackson supporters about such a deal between Adams and Clay. It was never clear if there was a formal deal. But if so, it doesn’t matter. There was nothing illegal about saying that if you support me for president, I’ll give you a position in my administration.

            And I understand that the Mayor has issued a 6 PM curfew which SHE DIDN’T DO WHEN THE BITCHY LITTLE MARXISTS WERE RUNNING WILD…

            Aside from your racism, you are a goddammed liar, Dr. Ed. One fucking second of googling would have told you that. I can’t provide you all the links because Reason only allows one per post, but this is one of the first ones that come up:


            1. I of course meant to type that Trump was resoundingly rejected by all decent, patriotic Americans.

        2. If you consider importing tens of millions of third worlders with the sole purpose of getting votes to be “fair and square,” then yes.

    2. This blog is remarkable. I compare Trump to Hitler (the bunker Hitler), and as a result, a fight breaks out over the election of 1824!

  4. Time to start breaking into federal buildings!

    Rule of Law …. Rule of Law … Rule of Law

  5. “without undue suspicion of his motives”

    Trump’s win meant Garland didn’t go to the Supreme Court.

    Any prosecution will just be revenge based. Read some Roman history to se how that ends.

    1. No, Mitch McConnell meant Garland didn’t go to the Supreme Court.

    2. ” Any prosecution will just be revenge based. ”

      Quit whining, you bigoted hayseed, and hope your betters are gracious.

    3. I very much doubt there will be any federal prosecution of Trump. Too many thorny issues, and will make the powers that be uncomfortable.

      Especially when there are state AGs just itching to go after him. Starting with the NY AG.

      Biden (and now Merrick) can very easily say, “no federal prosecution. The states are out of our control, so let them do what they want.”

      Besides, the state penitentiary is more onerous than Club Fed. (Although that has gotten less attractive. When I first started practicing, one partner did a fair amount of criminal work. Some clients would call and complain about the conditions in the federal pen. Like, they turn the lights out at the tennis courts at 6 pm. I am not kidding. Those days are over.)

  6. Reportedly SCOTUS refused to hear the Texas suit out of fears of violence in the streets if they did.

    Well, they didn’t, and now they have violence in the streets.

    Just sayin….

    1. No. There was no such report. Some Qanon guy on 4chan fabricated a claim about a “staffer” — which the Supreme Court doesn’t have — overhearing something at a conference of the justices that didn’t happen because there haven’t been any such conferences since March.

    2. “Reportedly” is doing a lot of work there.

  7. Just amazing that some of the commenters here – Dr Ed, Bob, Aktenberg – approve of and defend what is going on in Washington.

    You are all scum. Absolute, treasonous scum. You have zero concept of patriotism.

    1. They are inconsequential bigots, bernard11, destined to fail. The Volokh Conspiracy will continue to lather them, and they’ll bluster a bit, but they are disaffected, desperate losers, and they know.

      They don’t deserve respect. They deserve everything that is coming to them, though.

      1. And the weatherman defends tornadoes?

        1. Shut up, Ed.

          You’ve been cheering for this for a long time.

          1. Predicting penis breath, predicting — and warning…

            1. Open wider, Republicans. Open wider, bigots. Open wider, conservatives. Open wider, Conspiracy fans. Your betters likely are no longer interested in appeasing you.

              1. PITCHFORKS & TORCHES…

            2. No, you’ve called for it a number of times. Threatened it even if the country doesn’t adopt your dumbass views.

    2. Rioting is the language of the unheard, bernard.

      Not applicable anymore?

      1. They were heard, Bob.

        Simple question. Is this OK?

        1. “Is this OK?”

          Certainly not.

          I never heard you say the same about the rioting last summer though.

          1. Actually, I did say the same about the vandalism, arson, etc. I didn’t say it about the peaceful, yes, peaceful, protestors who generally weren’t involved in that.

            You weren’t listening.

            Too busy getting your news from OAN or somewhere, I guess.

            1. “generally weren’t involved”


              1. I said throw the book at any rioters or vandals. I was called a liar who didn’t believe that.

                Your commitment to the narrative is impressive.

                1. “any rioters or vandals”

                  That you deny exist. You spent a week moaning about federal officers defending the courthouse there.

                  Yesterday I posted a story about looting and you said in effect “one building, big deal”.

                  Your commitment to gaslighting is impressive.

          2. Yes, this and breaking some windows at a local bank branch are exactly symmetrical actions.

            You guys are some real sick puppies.

            1. You’re right. There is a human right to alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive of rights. There is no such right with respect to a bank branch.

              1. Lmao. The absolute state of modern conservatism.

            2. “breaking some windows at a local bank branch are exactly symmetrical actions”

              They are of course both wrong.

              You defend the first though. So you lack moral standing to condemn the second.

        2. It is not Ok.

          They were not heard, bernard11. They were summarily dismissed and treated with contempt. I tried to explain that last evening to you, to no avail.

          1. They were heard. The right to be heard is not the right to be taken seriously.

          2. Of course they were heard, endlessly.

            They voted, got their votes counted, and lost. Then they went to court, and lost again. And this all happened in a political structure that is tilted in their favor.

            They don’t want to be heard, XY. They want their guy in the White House regardless of the election results. That’s what they want, and they can’t have it.

            So stop telling me they want to be heard.

            Let them write letters, make blog posts, demonstrate peacefully, etc.

            1. bernard11, let me try again. It matters to me what you and Sarcastr0 think, because I know many, many people personally and professionally who think much the same way you do. BTW…I agree with you 100% = Let them write letters, make blog posts, demonstrate peacefully, etc. That is how we are supposed to peacefully express our dissent. That is what we are all doing here at VC.

              Look, you cannot summarily dismiss the concerns of ~33% of the voting population. That is ~50 million people, bernard11. That dismissal simply won’t happen. It is a very serious mistake to attempt to do so. The critical mass of people is simply too large. Did you see them today? It is no longer a question of whether they will be heard or not. They made themselves heard today. Can you not see this?

              Personally, I think the people who ran into the Capitol Building today need to be found, charged, tried and then imprisoned. And they will be. For years. They are all on camera; they cannot hide.

              There is no historical event I can recall where something like this ever happened (a large crowd of Americans just crashing into the Capitol Building like we saw today), post-election. Not even during the Civil War. I could scarcely believe my eyes. Talk about shock to the conscience?! Did you see that lady they carried out on a stretcher? How do you want this critical mass of people heard, bernard11? Because they are going to keep making themselves heard. Why? Because their perception is that they are viewed and treated with utter contempt, and their concerns are being contemptuously dismissed. The longer that goes on, the more of this kind of thing we will see (and see more of what happened in the PA legislature yesterday).

              Defuse them, bernard11. There are many ways to do that. None of those ways involves POTUS Trump staying in office for a second term. He had his 10-week interregnum period to make his case; he did not make a case with sufficient evidence to change the result of a contested election. Its over; he lost. That is the constitutional process. It will be followed. Joseph Biden takes the oath of office in two weeks; he will be POTUS.

              Here is one suggestion. It is not a hard thing for the leaders of the House and Senate to jointly announce a commission to get to the final truth of the 2020 election (similar in concept to the 9/11 commission), to begin shortly after Joseph Biden is sworn into office on January 20th. That would include a forensic audit (nationwide audit – I would not limit to battleground states). Pragmatically speaking, no committee report comes out for at least 16 months. Passions will have cooled. A significant portion of that 33% will have seen that their concerns were taken seriously in that 16-month timeframe. Joe Biden is POTUS. Everyone gets something; more important, nobody really loses anything.

              One of the hardest things I’ve had to do is to learn how to listen to ‘the other’.

              1. That’s a pretty sensible post.

              2. I disagree with Absaroka. I may have agreed about four years ago, but this blog walked be through the logic behind hecklers’ veto.

                That’s what this is.

                1. There is no veto here, Heckler’s or otherwise, Sarcastr0; Joseph Biden will take the oath of office in two weeks. There is however, a potential path forward to consider ‘the day after’.

                  The question is not whether ~33% of people will be heard or not; they will be heard. The numbers are past a critical mass (one-third of the electorate is 50 million people, Sarcastr0). The question is ‘how’ you want to hear them. I would much rather do the hearing in a structured process, with a defined goal (e.g. electoral commission). We saw today what the alternative looks like when they are ignored and dismissed with contempt.

                  Defuse the situation.

          3. Trump asked for this. If he hadn’t asked for this, it wouldn’t have happened.

        3. Was it OK for protestors to terrorize Josh Hawley’s family in their home last night?

          Apparently, there was no real issue with it….

          1. Shoving progress down your bigoted, whining, right-wing throat, Armchair Lawyer, continues to be a great pleasure. Be nicer, clinger, or you will learn the condition of losers whose betters are not magnanimous.

          2. No. Next question.

            1. And yet, you didn’t protest about it one bit….

              1. WTF? Are you sane?

            1. HAHAHA!

              “Peaceful protests”

              You cannot make this stuff up….

              1. I mean, the article literally says that the police concluded they were peaceful. Do you have some indication that the police were wrong? Or is the concept of a peaceful protest itself just inherently implausible to you?

                1. Hawley’s reports and his wife’s reports.

                  The police weren’t there the entire time.

                  1. Hawley wasn’t there at any time, and I haven’t seen any comments from his wife. Do you have a link?

                    At any rate, the entire protest appears to be available on youtube:

                    Seems rather juvenile to me, as well as pointless. But I have trouble seeing anything that isn’t peaceful.

          3. What’s your evidence that they “terrorized” them? Seems like they yelled a lot, which, while annoying particularly at a residence, is a far cry from terrorizing.

            1. Hawley wasn’t there, and by the protestors own words they used a bullhorn to verbally assault his house, wife, and child…

              1. How do you verbally assault a house?

                1. By screaming threats at the inhabitants of the house through a bullhorn….

                  Threats are assault.

              2. “verbally assault”

                Damn, I guess words really *are* violence! Who says right wingers can’t be woke?

    3. What does a liberal non-Halakha following Jew who constantly maligns the Anglo Protestant culture that built America know about patriotism?

  8. These people have been dismissed for 50 years. First, they were lied to about the motives of the 1965 Immigration Act, and told they were hateful bigots when they questioned the effects this mass third world immigration was having on the labor market in general, their jobs specifically, and on our national ethos and cultural cohesion.

    They were then dismissed as the elites decided “free trade” and “globalization” is good because it “makes everyone richer,” and mocked and laughed at when it didn’t come to pass.

    Then, when there are obvious irregularities in the election process, rather than trying to explain them, the left, with the reinforcement of its sycophants in the media, mocked them and said the claims had “no evidence,” which of course, they couldn’t, because the evidence was all destroyed.

    As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

    1. If “[t]hese people” are anything like you, then they are hateful bigots, and they should be dismissed by patriotic Americans (who, I’ll admit seem in disappointingly short supply these days).

      1. I know ad hominems are popular among you people, but they don’t make for a particularly compelling argument.

    2. You seem to be unaware that this is an article about Biden’s appointment of Merrick Garland to attorney general.

  9. “…well-respected on both sides of the aisle…”

    Maybe it’s not so much an aisle but rather a triangle since I seem to be on a side that doesn’t much respect Merrick Garland.

Please to post comments