You noted one key point here - Garland allowed Trump to complete his coup over the GOP in the early part of the Biden admin.
I think one of the reasons why I’ve handled this election and the cluster******** that will be Trump’s cabinet and governance so well is I’ve been mentally prepared for it for almost 4 years. I recommend Garland hold his head up high…easier for the guillotine to make a clean cut.
In retrospect, I wonder how could anyone have thought Garland was a good choice in those circumstances. If you think about it, Garland was the Supreme Court pick whom Obama thought might be acceptable to Mitch McConnell - not exactly the ideal recommendation when you need someone to prosecute a bunch of Republican putschists. But I genuinely wish for Trump to carry out his threats of retribution and for Garland and other Trump's "enemies" to go to jail. First, because it would be unfair only for the less fortunate to suffer. Second, because, despite the rhetoric, it seems a lot of the "institutionalists" have not fully appreciated the extent of the Trumpian threat. Until a gaggle of them are not thrown into the MAGA equivalent of Lubianka, they are just not going to take the possibility of authoritarianism seriously enough. Maybe then they'll stop scratching their asses in search of perfect legal reasonings while the barbarians are battering down the gates.
Obama thought Garland would be acceptable to McConnell because McConnell explicitly said as much earlier in Obama's tenure. From reading a few of his opinions over the years when he was the Chief Judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, my guess is he would've been a left-leaning moderate similar to Breyer. And I'd feel confident in saying he wouldn't have voted to overrule Chevron.
This is exactly what I am talking about. Speaking of Breyer: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/15/us/breyer-gorsuch-federalist-society.html So, basically, good ol' "left-leaning moderate" Breyer goes to a Federalist Society party, after Trump's win, to make nice with Gorsuch. And what does he say: One part of the reason the US is in this mess is this kind of elite solidarity and blindspots coming from a desire to protect their zone of comfort at any cost. Because, hey, taking a stand is risky! People like this may vote liberal in one decision or another. But they are really, really bad at detecting attempts to undermine the democratic order by would-be authoritarians, they are really, really terrified to take any action which might even slightly deviate from the norms or might look unconventional/biased (something that authoritarians exploit to the maximum) and they really, really hope the threat would somehow magically disappear on its own. And Donald Fredorovich Trumpov is the result.
This (bolded ) attitude is still prevalent even among some elected democrats. It drives me nuts to see some acting like it is business as usual and repeating the same nonsense. As mentioned, it is like they are afraid of sounding unconventional or not respecting the "norms", when those norms only exit in their limited imagination.
I care a lot less about spouting bromides regarding the independence of the judiciary (which actually is how things should be) than I do about how he voted as a Justice. And in that regard, Breyer didn't fail. To the contrary, he was quite reliable support for what one would consider Democratic principles. He didn't just "vote liberal in one decision or another" as you characterize him below. I agree with this take generally, I just think its misplaced in being directed at Breyer given that he nearly always voted in a way left leaning folks preferred. And lots of liberal law professors and left-leaning judges speak at Federalist Society events (Steve Vladeck, Eric Segall, Larry Tribe just to name a few) so that the legal positions espoused by that group don't go unchallenged. And if you follow any of them on social media or listen to their interviews, they're hardly shrinking violets when it comes to warning of the grave danger posed by the sociopaths about to come back into office. Moreover, it's important that they keep doing so, as there's a disconnect between many of the rank and file of the Federal Society and the Leonard Leo's who currently run it. IOW, there are more Judge Luttig's there than you'd guess, and it's important to try to make them allies.
The problem is that it is not. The Conservative Justices on the SC are basically behaving as the judiciary arm of the Republican Party and have been doing so for a while. Breyer spouting platitudes about a judiciary independence that does not exist anymore is basically gaslighting the public. You miss the point. Breyer and those like him are a reliable support when the institutional gears of the democracy are working as intended. But they are completely out of their depth when those gears break apart.
I had the same thought…on June 18th, 2021 https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/january-6-2021-the-insurrection.2113286/page-335#post-39757196
No, I don't think I did. As a sitting Justice, what more should he have done then the vote the way he did and write dissents when he disagreed? Or are you saying that now as a retired Justice, he should be more of a firebrand?
Refuse to endorse the farce that is the current Supreme Court, for instance. People boycott governments antithetical to their values all the time - and do so with a good reason.
Anyone? Trump? Remember when "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" tried to teach us about tariffs and no one was paying attention pic.twitter.com/Yhxh3ky7on— Wu Tang is for the Children (@WUTangKids) November 26, 2024
You say as if that is a bad thing. Breyer rubbing shoulders with the Sinister 6 and pretending everything is business as usual gives them legitimacy. After Trump won, the first thing MAGA did was to claim that everyone who warned about the dangers of Trump were just spouting "campaign rhetoric" because Biden and Harris behaved with civility. This has been one of their main points: "Look, X is meeting with 'Hitler', so he did not really believe what he/she was saying" (mainly in relation to Biden, but not just him). But Biden was compelled by the norms governing the presidential transition to meet with Trump and play nice. Breyer has no such obligations.
I get what you're saying but I think the problem comes back to the old phrase of, 'The man for the moment'. In the face of an actual fascist threat people like Garland are an absolute disaster. They give the impression of 'business as usual' and respond accordingly. What Trump is doing is pretty much what Biden should have done, but in reverse... sacked Garland and put in an attack dog to go after Trump. Biden was always going to be accused of using 'lawfare' anyway so what's the difference.
I'm not talking about Garland though, I'm talking about Breyer who occupied a completely different role. I'm as disappointed/perplexed by Garland as most on here.
When did breyer ever break ranks with the left?? Same with rbg, kagan, and sotomayor. They're always reliable partisan leftists. I say that with envy. On our side, only Alito is a true partisan. Roberts, Kavanaugh, gorsuch all soft squishes. It's really unfortunate.