Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Funny how so many see Smith's report, and it's mention of "timeliness", as an indictment of Garland [View all]muriel_volestrangler
(102,897 posts)38. Obviously, you have an idiosyncratic view of what happened
and need to stick to it to defend Garland. Your guesses as to what would have happened if the DoJ had worked faster (ie the Supreme Court would have magicked up something else that they did not bother with this time) do not mean that you are right. But it is a depressing "no one can overcome this Supreme Court" message.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
39 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Funny how so many see Smith's report, and it's mention of "timeliness", as an indictment of Garland [View all]
Fiendish Thingy
Jan 14
OP
Exactly- regardless of Garland's speed, the outcome would have been the same
Fiendish Thingy
Jan 14
#4
People had higher expectations of Garland than of Roberts and the other conservative SCJs
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 14
#2
All the existing evidence shows the courts would have continued to delay a trail
Fiendish Thingy
Jan 14
#12
Exactly. The courts were working through was was admissible, not saying "this will never happen"
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 14
#22
Again, you're just guessing what they'd try to do. It's a counsel of despair.
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 14
#31
Your entire argument is "it was impossible to get a trial in four years"
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 14
#33
I thought Garland was a terrible choice for the supreme court, as well as the AG
NewHendoLib
Jan 14
#5
You completely misunderstand the definition of, and justification for appointing a special counsel. Nt
Fiendish Thingy
Jan 14
#18
The courts may not of been as protective of trump, if, he was indicted "sooner",
republianmushroom
Jan 14
#34
Regrettably, certain individuals seek a convenient scapegoat when faced with events that exceed their control *
Oopsie Daisy
Jan 14
#26
It can be both an indictment of Garland and delays/obstruction by the Roberts' Court
Stargleamer
Jan 14
#30
So walk me through how another AG would have obtained a conviction before the election
Fiendish Thingy
Jan 14
#37