First, I floated this idea some time back, before the election, because Garland struck me as precisely the type of person Biden should want running the Justice Department. He has unusually deep experience the the department.
He is also, critically, as close as we have in this day and age to a figure who is actually above politics. Despite what Mitch McConnell did wth his nomination, he the subject of pretty universal admiration among his colleagues on the D.C. Circuit.
This has been true since the day he showed up on the court, from the Justice Department, in the mid-1990s.
A Garland nomination would send the following signal to the judiciary and the public about the Justice Department: the president-elect wants to return the Justice Department to its tradition of investigative rigor and non-political decisionmaking on investigative matters.
The judiciary would take that message seriously. Consider that Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, is a former colleague of Garland's who is known to admire him deeply.
It would also send an important message to everyone actively debating the question of how to handle a possible Trump or Trump-family investigation/prosecution after January 20. The message it would send is one of independence and uncertainty.
If Garland were to come off the bench to become AG, it certainly wouldn't be with any understanding on the point with Biden--who surely knows better than to even discuss the matter with him.
So we'd be getting a rigorous mind who was not involved in the Russia investigation at all (save that certain matters, like Flynn, eventually came before the DC Circuit). He would come in with no baggage, a great deal of intimacy with the department, and both the reality...
...and appearance of independence.
There is nobody I would trust more to (a) decide how to handle the Trump situation, (b) supervise and deal with the John Durham stuff, and (c) clean up the FBI's FISA mess.
That's all I got.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ok, it being 1:30 and @Klonick and my not having a guest yet for @inlieuoffunshow, I declare it a #GuestsGoneWild day. In my next tweet, I will tag some key members of the audience. They will respond with some prior guests they would like the bring back.
The first bagged guest will name some other guest he or she wants to talk to. And we'll see what happens. Here we go....
There was actually a little more to the dream than this. At one point, a prominent lawyer walks into the court, recognizes me, and begins congratulating me about @lawfareblog. This stresses me out further because while it is good for my case before the judge, I have no idea...
...who this person is and I'm clearly supposed to know him.
Also, the judge mysteriously changes gender and race. As a judge, he is African American and male. As a dental hygienist, she is white and female and I am trying to make my case to her before sitting in the chair.
Wow, this puts it as well and as succinctly as I've ever seen it put. Gonna remember the words: "I feel anxious for civic virtue in an era of mis- and disinformation." They capture a lot.
This is a very good point from @steve_vladeck. The appointment itself does not comply with the regs. If Barr can appoint someone pursuant to his general statutory appointment authority and apply the regs, it is very likely that the next attorney general can rescind the order.
That is, if the appointment is not bound by the regs, presumably rescinding the appointment is not either—and thus does not require good cause. If, by contrast, the appointment *is* bound by the regs, it violates them and thus can be rescinded as unlawful.
I think.
Ok, having looked at this a little more carefully now, here's a first read: (1) The appointment is not made pursuant to the special counsel regulations but to Barr's general statutory authorities as attorney general:
A Thanksgiving story to warm your pluralistic hearts:
It was the early 1990s, the days before Washington DC had meters in taxis. A famine was raging in Somalia. And I was working in my first job out of college: a brief stint working for an organization that focused on the Middle East peace process.
I was heading to my parents’ house. I was standing in front of a mailbox near my office. I was holding a stack of papers with Hebrew writing on them. I hailed a cab.