Advice to Attorney General Merrick Garland

[Mme. Defarge]

Link to tweet

?s=10

[dalton99a]

1. They are instruments of terror

Republicans want people to terrorize anyone thinking about helping the woman

[PJMcK]

16. That's excellent advice and here's some more

To AG Garland:

You have the powers to bring Trump and his enablers to Justice.

Use your powers quickly or you will lose your opportunity.

Use your powers quickly or we could lose our democracy.

[FM123]

2. Yep!

Perhaps Merrick Garland should be listening to the "advice" of Laurence Tribe about all kinds of things, if you ask me....
https://www.salon.com/2021/08/30/laurence-tribe-if-garland-doesnt-prosecute-trump-the-rule-of-law-is-out-the-window/

[Grasswire2]

28. Tribe was Garland's professor.

No one is more qualified to provide advice.

And Tribe does so, publicly, to Garland.

Publicly.

[StarfishSaver]

31. Why not advise him privately instead of calling him out on Twitter?

I'm sure Tribe knows how to reach him and surely Garland would take a call from former professor.

[Grasswire2]

32. Maybe Tribe knows better than we do.

Maybe Garland needs calling out, and Tribe knows it.

Maybe he did do that, and Garland ignored it but the consequences for the republic are just too much more important than any antiquated consideration of DoJ tradition.

[StarfishSaver]

34. That's possible

It's also possible that Garland and his team of U.S. Attorneys, prosecutors and investigators know better than Tribe - who has spent his career as an academic who never prosecuted a case, conducted an investigation, or worked in the Justice Department - the details of the crimes and people they're investigating, what their legal authorities are, and how they should proceed with these investigations and prosecutions to ensure charges stick and criminals are convicted.

I respect Professor Tribe. But when it comes to determining how to conduct and investigation and prosecute the case, I'm going with the judgment of Attorney General Garland and his team.

[LeftInTX]

3. That's what he's gonna do...go after them with the Ku Klux Klan Act

[Mme. Defarge]

6. Formidable!

Had to look that one up.

[StarfishSaver]

4. And yet, whenever Garland announces anything, some folks attack him for not DOING anything

"He's all talk ... Milquetoast ... He needs to do more ... I'll believe it when he starts locking people up," etc.

So, maybe Garland is ignoring the advice of outsiders lecturing him on social media about what be should say and do and is simply focusing on effectively doing the job he was appointed to do (while probably getting lots of great advice from people he's actually talking to and who aren't lobbing instructions to him on Twitter).

[Joinfortmill]

10. Yup, I have no doubt he is. However, I do like Tribe.

[StarfishSaver]

12. I like Tribe, too

[gab13by13]

18. The defense that Garland is using is iffy,

it was used for attacks on abortion centers, and attacks on abortion providers, the Texas law doesn't do that. What Tribe is saying that Garland should do isn't what Garland is doing. It's better than doing nothing.

[StarfishSaver]

22. He's not using a "defense."

And, FYI, Tribe's tweet is two days old - he offered this advice before Garland's announcement today.

Tribe suggests that Garland announce that DOJ will take a certain action. Today, Garland announces DOJ is going to take an action different than the one Tribe suggested - and mass it clear that they will also take other actions.

Garland's not "doing nothing" - he's just not doing what some people want him to do, which isn't surprising since many of those people can't even articulate what they actually want him to do because they don't know.

[kacekwl]

19. Problem is I can't recall any

announcements. Seems like he's ignoring a lot of things.

[StarfishSaver]

23. Garland made an announcement today.

If you're going to criticize Garland for "ignoring things," you should at least try to stay current with the news related to the "things" you're discussing

[maxrandb]

26. Some on DU think that unless we send the 101ST Airborne to invade Texas

Biden is not doing enough.

I am not sure they are wrong

[Grasswire2]

29. Or maybe the people NEED to be heard.

Maybe the strategy of the Biden administration's DoJ was to wait for irrepressible public demand to drive adjudication of Trump crimes. It is a brilliant strategy in this fraught and divided moment.

Maybe doing so -- (waiting for public demand to provide cover for actions of the DoJ that will infuriate MAGATS) is a strategy that we Biden supporters ought not tamper with. Let the demand for action rage! Criticizing rank and file Dems who urge action just might be counter productive.

[StarfishSaver]

30. There's a difference between "urging action" and accusing Biden's AG of being weak, feckless, coward

and worse, because people falsely assume that not seeing indictments yet means that nothing is being done.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. It's great advice

However, this is a high stakes game of chess. Every move must be thought out, every sequence is important, and it's played, whether we like it or not, in a divided political landscape, so the other side could create barriers, problems, or even win if a move is out of sequence or improper. It's a lawyers' game, let things develop.

[StarfishSaver]

13. Thank you

[twin_ghost]

7. There not suing the person getting an abortion.

They are suing the person performing the abortion.

[Jon King]

9. Which denies the women her civil rights.

Same thing, they sue the provider which requires a release of medical records to prove their case. And it denies the women her legal right to an abortion up until fetal viability.

[ShazzieB]

11. Or anyone who "aids or abets" her in getting the abortion.

Whatever the hell that even means!

The way that pathetic excuse for a law is written, multiple numbers of people could be sued for each individual abortion, starting with the entire abortion clinic staff and including anyone who gave the woman money, advice, money, a ride to the clinic. Maybe even someone who babysat for her kids while she wen to the clinic. It would be outrageous if only the person performing abortion was affected. As it is, this this thing is so far beyond outrageous that it can't even SEE outrageous from where it is.

[Jon King]

8. Exactly what I suggested earlier, annouce it would be civil rights violation.

This is easy. Abortion is legal until viability. The Texas law is unlawful.

Any 'private citizen' who sues a provider is denying a woman her civil rights. That private citizen should be prosecuted by DOJ. And the women should sue the 'private citizen' for mental anguish.

This law needs to be exposed as a sham.

[StarfishSaver]

15. Sounds easy

but the fact that the law creates a private right of action makes it very difficult for the federal government to step in. The federal government has very limited ability to sue or prosecute individuals for interfering with other individual's exercise of their civil rights. There needs to be state action involved, a clearly symbiotic relationship between the actor and the state, or violation of specific civil rights statutes.

Not that it can't be done, but the fact that such acts violating a woman's rights would be taken pursuant to a law complicates things.

This may seem simple on its face, but it is much more legally complex than it appears.

[Goodheart]

14. And, of course, that won't happen.

Garland has been a major disappointment.

[Evolve Dammit]

17. It needs to be specified exactly what the "Rules of Engagement" are to Texans who are looking to

cash in on bounty huntin' and lawyerin'. DOJ needs to really step up here.

[totodeinhere]

20. I agree he should try that. But if he does I think that the State of Texas would almost certainty

sue and Garland's policy might be on shaky ground at this Supreme Court. But yes, try it. Try everything and anything we can think of to stop this ridiculous law.

[StarfishSaver]

24. Why do you assume anyone's "spoon feeding" DOJ?

People tweeting at DOJ and DOJ not reporting out their every move to you on a regular basis does not mean the tweeters are spoon feeding them.

[NullTuples]

25. Garland: Or, I could express my sincere disappointment in a letter.

[StarfishSaver]

27. Please share with us your wisdom: What do you think DOJ should do now that they're not doing?

Please be specific.

[Grasswire2]

35. My humble suggestion is that you stop hammering rank and file Dems for expressing their opinions.

Every Democrat has a legitimate opinion and a legitimate voice. I understand that you see your own voice here as protection for elected and appointed Dems. And that means intolerance for the voices of some others, evidently.

But, as I have suggested previously, you can't herd Democrats with sarcasm and bitter attacks. They (we) must be led.

Garland's own contemporaries in the law and the administration of justice are urging a different path from what we have seen to date. And yet you continually berate rank and file Dems who (informed by those contemporaries of Garland) raise their voices to echo these experts in law and administration of justice.

Just let the people speak. Let each Dem express his/her opinion.

[lagomorph777]

33. Absolutely. This is not a hard one, Garland.