Merrick Garland knows nothing and has no opinions.

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Garland Evasive before Senate

Merrick Garland, in his testimony before the Senate seeking confirmation as Attorney General is setting records for evasiveness when questioned on important issues. “I know nothing about…” was a common answer when queried about important matters he would be making decisions on. Makes one wonder what he has been doing the last 4 years.

He asserted that gun control would be an important priority, but then professed to have no opinion on the  meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

I don’t know if he will be conformed or not, but thank goodness McConnell kept this weasel off of the Supreme Court.

Published by Don Tabor

I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.

Published

41 thoughts on “Merrick Garland knows nothing and has no opinions.”

  1. You forgot the Amy Barrett hearings where she set the bar on answering nothing.

    You don’t like Garland because he disagreed with you on guns. And that is fine. Probably 1/4 of the electorate are single issue voters.

    So far Biden has done pretty well with his picks considering the strong partisan divisions.

    What is encouraging is the much needed 1/6 investigation to find out the truth of the attempted autogolpe.

    It would be interesting to hear some testimonies under oath.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Barret was being considered for the Supreme Court, not Attorney General, and followed RBG’s dictum that a court nominee not state an opinion on topics he or she might be expected to rule upon. She did not lie, she declined to answer questions that fell under that guidance.

      Garland denied having an opinion on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, in spite of having made rulings based on it, an obvious lie.

      I initially had thought Attorney General might be a good fit for Garland, but not if he has to lie his way through confirmation.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Expressing an opinion about future rulings for a court appointed might be prejudicial.

        The AG doesn’t opine on the law, he carries out enforcement. He can’t alter the law Congress passes.

        That is the paper. The reality might be different as the AG is also a political animal to the extent that his administration sets an agenda as to priorities.

        If he writes a court opinion, dissent or not, he is going by his interpretation of the law, not necessarily his personal opinion. But asked about his personal opinion on a hot button issue is not necessarily key for AG nor should it be.

        Like abortion, he may be personally against the procedure but he will defend and uphold the laws as written.

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply

        1. There is an important difference between a judge and an AG.

          A judge rules on the case that comes before him. An AG can initiate suits and charges.

          I have recounted here before about a colleague of mine who was on the State Board of Dentistry and was threatened with litigation by the government for doing his duty. He was told by a government lawyer that if he didn’t capitulate, they would sue him and lose and then appeal and lose, and then sue again on slightly different grounds and lose and appeal and lose. The government has 50,000 lawyers with nothing else to do, In the end, my friend would have won, but would have been bankrupted.

          So, yes, an AG who refuses to accept settled law can do a great deal of harm to citizens even if he loses every case.

          An AG candidate who will not tell the truth about his position on the 2nd Amendment, or any other item of law should not be confirmed.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “An AG candidate who will not tell the truth about his position on the 2nd Amendment, “…

            The AG has NO reason to state his/her position on the law. He/she cannot decide any cases or here arguments defending thee 2A or looking for a way for it to be changed by SCOTUS. His/her duty is to defend the laws. His/her personal position, or even legal interpretation when he/she was sitting the bench has ZERO to do with the duties as AG.

            Like

          2. The AG has a reason to truthfully answer the questions asked of him by the Senate. He won’t get confirmed if he doesn’t.

            And Senators have a duty to determine if a potential AG is going to harass his constituents.

            Like

          3. I have already provided the transcript of the exchange with Senator Lee on the subject of the Second Amendment. Here it is again . . .

            http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2102/22/cnr.06.html

            There is no nice way to put this. You are lying about what Judge Garland said about the Second Amendment. Callous, bald-faced lies.

            He did NOT refuse to accept settled law. He clearly stated his acceptance of the Heller decision.
            He did NOT lie about his position on the Second Amendment. In any way.

            If you were “mistaken” or mislead this morning, you have no excuse now. You have chosen to double down on lies. Silly lies because anybody can read the transcript in about three minutes and see for themselves that you are lying.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Shuck and jive much?
            And defend lies with a new lie.

            Garland DID answer the question asked and very directly and thoroughly at that.

            Here is the question about the Second Amendment . . .
            Q: “How do you view it . . .”

            A: “So, my view is totally controlled by the Heller opinion. And in that case, Justice Scalia held that there was an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In the subsequent McDonald Case, the court said that was a fundamental right, which applied to the states as well. It is a right, as Justice Scalia said in the opinion, like all rights that is subject to some limitations.”

            THAT is your basis for cries of perjury and lock him up?!!

            He was also asked his opinion about something that Justice Thomas wrote in a dissent. On that one he demurred citing the need for historical research that he has not done. Dissents are NOT settled law – the opposite in fact.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Where did I say anything about perjury or imprisonment?

            It is clear from earlier decisions that he does not agree with Heller, and looked for ways around it.

            He protected Janet Reno in her blatant disregard for the Brady Bill protections for firearms owners.

            That he has an opinion on the meaning of the 2nd is quite clear, and simply saying he is bound by Heller does not answer the question about HIS interpretation of the 2nd.

            Lock him up? No. but don’t confirm him for anything beyond his current lifetime gig.

            Like

          7. “Where did I say anything about perjury or imprisonment?”

            Uh, in this thread earlier today.

            “Garland denied having an opinion on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, in spite of having made rulings based on it, an obvious lie.”

            “I initially had thought Attorney General might be a good fit for Garland, but not if he has to lie his way through confirmation.”

            Lying under oath is perjury. And that is a serious crime. Duh.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “I had only looked at it as cause for rejection, but if you think he should be prosecuted, then OK.”

            So civil. So adult.

            The “weasel” should not be confirmed because of the LIES you made up about his testimony? Well, speaking of “weasel” you made the accusation of perjury and now trying to not own it?

            It is obvious what is really going on. You rationalize such scurrilous lies about a very honorable man because of your emotional attachment to your guns. It is not enough to simply say – ” I hope he isn’t confirmed because I disagree with him on interpreting the Second Amendment.” Oh no. That is not the Trumpian way. He has to be called a liar, a perjurer and a weasel. You have learned well, grasshopper.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. You really don’t like Garland just because he doesn’t agree with you on the 2A. Why not look at taking some of the bad with the good. You did that with T**** for 5 years.

            Like

          12. What you are saying is true for any government prosecutor on any issue. I am not a single issue voter, so I can live with this choice, no problem.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. A legal opinion based on a case does not necessarily mean that is his personal opinion.

            Just like abortion, a person can be against the practice, but still uphold the law.

            My suggestion is that you don’t approve of his appointment.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. If the ruling doesn’t establish his personal opinion on guns.

            We just acquitted Trump in the Senate trial. Few were happy with Trump’s actions and most thought he was guilty. But a technically flawed, but still prevalent, opinion was the trial was after he left office so invalid.

            By your standards, McConnell believed Trump was totally innocent despite his scathing remarks.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. ” . . . until he got evasive about it.”

            Except that he was not evasive. Not in the least bit.

            Oh, by “evasive” maybe you mean he did not say . . .
            “I hate gun loving pinheads and intend to hurt them every way I can if you let me be AG”

            which you just KNOW is what he really believes. So frustrating for you to have him reaffirm that Heller is the law of the land. What a liar! LOL!

            Why you cannot simply say “I don’t like him or his record on guns and don’t want him to be AG” without feeling compelled to slime an honorable man with falsehoods is something you should maybe take up with your therapist?

            Liked by 1 person

  2. You are on quite a roll today – Traitors and weasels everywhere. Do you really believe that your “contributions” are examples of adult and civil offerings in the “marketplace of ideas?” If you do, you are sadly mistaken.

    President Biden is building an administration of competent, decent, honest people and people of your ilk just can’t stand it. It is quite the spectacle. You obviously are missing the good old days of WWE government already. And how frustrating that Judge Garland is not dumb enough to feed you ammunition for your hate-filled culture wars.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

      1. Nothing to do with right or left.

        Merrick Garland is an appellate court judge who has ruled on 2nd Amendment cases, but he told the Senate that he has no opinion on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. An obvious lie, he just doesn’t want to answer.

        So, are you OK with an Attorney General candidate lying to the Senate?

        That should be a disqualifier no matter where you are poltically.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “No opinion”

          You seem to have no understanding of the role of a judge in an adjudication. Characterizing Garland as lying when he said he has no opinion on the 2nd Amendment when ruling on the facts before him is his job.He renders a LEGAL opinion about the facts in a single case based interpretation in THAT case.

          Believe what you wish, but if there is any “lying” going on it you lying to yourself based on your bias on the issue.

          Liked by 4 people

          Reply

        2. Nothing to do with left or right? Who on the right enjoys your drooling hatred? No traitors? No weasels? Only “trespassers?”

          I have now read the exchange on the Second Amendment. Your charge of perjury is bullshit. And, sadly, that is not surprising.

          What you call perjury, an objective observer sees a man making it clear that his professional opinion is based on the state of the law. As when he said . . . “GARLAND: So, my view is totally controlled by the Heller opinion. And in that case, Justice Scalia held that there was an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. ”

          He was also very forthcoming about the role of the DOJ . . . “The role of the Justice Department is to advance the policy program of the administration, as long as it is consistent with the law.”

          The quote which lying liars take out of context – “So I don’t have an opinion on that question.” was with regard to the need for research he has not done on a very specific piece of a dissent in a case he was not involved with. It was not the broad brushed claim of ignorance that you are pushing. And was obviously not even in the same county, let alone ballpark, with perjury.

          Here is the entire exchange. You have distorted it beyond all recognition in order to spew your perjury slander. Or are you just uncritically regurgitating some garbage from QAnon? Shameful, really shameful in either case.

          http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2102/22/cnr.06.html

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          1. I’ll be shocked if even your clear presentation of the “facts” on the exchange and Garland’s abundantly clear position on it will do anything other than elicit a deflection.

            Of course with the shovel our 2nd Amendment zealot carries on this issue a bigger hole may be in the offing…

            Liked by 2 people

        3. …”you OK with an Attorney General candidate lying to the Senate”

          You were Ok with one who did not do the job of AG, but instead was the personal lawyer for the Oval Office rezident.

          Garland has already shown through his testimony, that he will be independent and perform his duties in accordance with the law. A pleasant change after 4 years of DOJ politicization.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

      2. Not really.

        Note that Albemarle Regional Health Services is doing things a bit differently than other places in NC,

        They started with Nursing homes and staff as Group 1, the those over 65 and health care workers in general as Group 2. This week, having finished vaccinating those in Group 2 they will be starting on Group 3 which includes teachers others in selected professions.

        But if there is an unvaccinated octogenarian in the ARHS district, it is by their choice.

        The difference between ARHS and Virginia is that they vaccinated the elderly before the politically connected.

        So. perhaps some 25 year old public employee has been delayed by Virginians crossing the border, but ARHS is months ahead of Virginia in protecting those who most need it.

        Like

        Reply

          1. Those over 65 are 90 time more likely to die if infected than those under 30. Those over 75 are 220 times more likely to die.

            Are young people at some risk, sure, but no where near as much as the elders Virginia is leaving to die.

            Like

          2. Don, YOU can shelter, many of “them” cannot. It is not simply a statistical and simplistic calculation.

            It is a question of personal (no one watching) ethics. You protected yourself and put “others” at increased risk.

            Man-up, own it and quit the “yeah buts”…

            Liked by 2 people

          3. You think so?

            What then of the 25 yo govt worker who uses his union to elbow his way in front of the elders who will die as a result?

            What is your judgment of their ethics?

            What of the politicians who facciliatate that?

            Like

          5. “You think so?

            What then of the 25 yo govt worker who uses his union to elbow his way in front of the elders who
            will die as a result?”

            Similar to what I think of your decision is my gut reaction, but you have more plausible excuses,
            Which don’t change your culpability….IMO

            Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment