Merrick Garland just annouced DOJ is going to war on voting rights

[StarfishSaver]

[Bayard]

1. Now we're talking!

No link yet?

[Cha]

43. Here's a link in post #10..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215518033#post10

[soothsayer]

2. Yassss!

[Firestorm49]

114. Steven Toast? Good one!

[WHITT]

3. SMACKDOWN

[CatWoman]

4. i think he's going to file a lawsuit against those assholes in Arizona

[gab13by13]

42. When I posted that DOJ should go after the clowns in Arizona,

a flock of flying monkeys attacked me. Not looking for any apologies.

[StarfishSaver]

82. I think some DUers (who are not, by the way, "flying monkeys") pushed back on the calls

for DOJ to do something in Arizona, not because anyone was pushing for that, but because many of the people who were did it in a hostile, accusatory way - attacking DOJ for not swooping into Arizona yesterday and stopping what's happening without having any idea what DOJ has the power to do and what they were planning to do there.

I'm not sure where your previous posts on that came down, but I do know that's how many people approached the topic.

[lagomorph777]

5. Oh, no! The GQP is already fighting a war on voting rights.

We need DOJ on our side.

I wish he'd announced he's going to war for voting rights.

[StarfishSaver]

7. You can't possibly be serious

But then, you probably are.

[lagomorph777]

23. OK, I'm being nitpicky, but your choice of words did give me a scare when I first read it.

Then I realized you probably meant the exact opposite of what you typed.

[jaxexpat]

138. Those pesky prepositions are not ALWAYS interchangeable.

When they perform as adverbs they "pre-position" the action of the statement. As with any war, it's best to have the high ground as can be attested by those who received fire from above. One can not "rain fire on the enemy" as effectively if they're under fire. So it goes. This war of words....or war at words....or war by words.... or war from words. This nation of the words, by the words and for the words shall not perish. Maybe.

[rainin]

139. Scared me, too. "For" would have been the better choice. n/t

[orangecrush]

59. Proper grammar saves lives

[StarfishSaver]

60. My OP put someone's life in danger?

FYI - saying a government official is a metaphor or colloquialism and, therefore, not bound by strict rules of grammar.

[orangecrush]

72. ...

[StarfishSaver]

77. Someone's gonna eat their grandma because of something I posted on DU?

Wow. I had no idea I had that kind of sway.

That's great to know. But I promise to use my powers only for good.

[orangecrush]

80. STARFISHSAVER!!!

Stop!


Not attacking you!


Democrat here!

Me friendly!

[Takket]

98. just going to leave this here...

[Shoeless Louis]

112. Calm down, check your meds! nt

[MerryBlooms]

116. That's a totally inappropriate thing to say to a member of DU, or anyone else.

[TeamProg]

124. Eats leaves and shoots - OR - Eats, leaves and shoots... n/t

[orangecrush]

128. ...

[MerryHolidays]

136. Good one! Punctuation and good grammar are fundamental to communicating effectively

This is a COMPLETE tangent, but the image in your post made me laugh out loud!

Recently, someone posted an article about the sad passing away of the founder of The Apostrophe Society. I think (but I'm not sure) the author of the great book Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation joked that she was in the militant wing of The Apostrophe Society!

I have to say that the older I get, and the faster I type, and hit send, the more mistakes I am seeing in my own written communication. I used to be a fanatic when it came to grammar and punctuation with my colleagues, but I am taking it a bit easier. The rapid-fire communications we have are a good thing and a bad thing.

I truly marvel at the ability of some DU folks (even on this thread, and MineralMan, I'm specifically referring to you!), who can type large amounts of text, with perfect grammar and punctuation, on the first try. That is most definitely not me.

In any event, I love this post!

[wnylib]

125. They're not criticizing the metaphor of

going to war. They are pointing out the choice of words - "ON voting rights" instead of "FOR voting rights." Or, it could also be clarified by saying, "on voting rights abuses."

[brush]

9. Is there a reading comprehension issue?

[WhiteTara]

27. No. The title states AG is going to war ON VR

and we need him to go to war FOR voting rights.

I know, semantics, semantics, but the headline is opposite what the writer intended.

[StarfishSaver]

32. No, it wasn't the opposite of what I intended

It could be taken two ways, even though the second way makes absolutely no sense at all since no one in their right mind would think that Merrick Garland was going to go fight against voting rights - or if he did, I would put a handclap of approval in the OP.

Given that the vast majority of people responding to the OP seemed to understand it perfectly well, perhaps the problem wasn't in the telling but in the comprehension.

[WhiteTara]

40. I fully understood your intent

and I'm just pointing out it could be read either way as you noted.

Given the last many years of hoping and waiting, it could be read that the AG is going to disappoint us again.

But hey, who's in their right mind these days anyway.

[moonscape]

92. Bah. 'on the subj of' was silent, i.e.

...going to war on (the subj of) voting rights. Perfectly clear.

[ShazzieB]

101. Yes, perfectly, completely, pellucidly clear!

Anyone who even sort of thought Merrick Garland might be going to war AGAINST voting rights (much less that Joe Biden would appoint an AG who would be capable of such a thing) needs to get a grip. I understand being cynical after 4 years of you know who, but that's beyond cynicism, imo, and edging towards something much darker.

[CrackityJones75]

15. At some point is it just trolling?

Seriously. On this announcement you still find a way to attack Democrats? WTH?

[lagomorph777]

25. A war on voting rights does not sound like a good thing.

A war for voting rights would sound much better.

And I don't know what you are seeing in my post that you interpreted as an attack on Democrats?

[burrowowl]

61. I agree with you! Going to war on sounds really scary.

[StarfishSaver]

75. As ridiculous as it seems to be arguing over semantics here ...

Saying someone is "going to war on" something is very different than saying they are "starting a war on something" ..

But, as I said, this whole back and forth seems pretty silly to me since it is very clear what my OP said and what it meant and thus, arguing about how some people might interpret it is really just a distraction.

[wnylib]

126. Just guessing, but I think lagomorph was

just making a joke with the semantics.

[MerryHolidays]

137. No one is attacking Democrats or trolling

Even the OP said in a subsequent post that the title could be read two ways, adding the context of the post makes a difference.

It's not a big deal, but someone could genuinely read the OP title, without more, and come away with a different impression than what was meant.

The easiest thing to do (which many of us do) is to fall on our sword and update our posts by revising the ambiguous language when a fellow DUer points it out. It is common on DU for fellow posters to point things out issues like this, and essentially most everyone (but clearly not everyone) simply amends the post to remove the ambiguity. Most of us understand that it makes for a more effective DU. It is really not a big deal.

Having a fight over something that even the OP admits is ambiguous is silly. To be "pellucidly clear", as some good folks on DU like to say, no one is trolling or attacking any Democrat.

[orangecrush]

57. ...

[Peacetrain]

6. That sweet wind blowing out the foul stench of the last republicanadministration..

is a wonderful thing..

[Hortensis]

8. His address today will outline the steps he plans to take. I've

had CNN on expecting it at the announced 2 p.m but haven't seen it yet.

AG Garland said from the beginning that he was making voting rights a major priority, but now we'll get to see what weapons the DoJ has to bring to this battle.

Would once never have imagined that it would be the Democratic Party almost alone against what have become Republican barbarian hoards determined to destroy democracy to "protect" America from us.

[StarfishSaver]

11. He just finished speaking

https://www.c-span.org/video/?512517-1/attorney-general-announcement-voting-rights&live

[Hortensis]

17. Thanks. I thought of CSPAN but assumed it would be carried in full elsewhere.

[StarfishSaver]

19. MSNBC carried it live

Not sure about CNN

[Hortensis]

30. I was tuned to CNN International. Hope CNN carried it.

[elleng]

10. Merrick Garland to announce Justice Dept. plans to protect voting access.

'Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on Friday plans to announce steps that the Justice Department can take to secure voting rights.

Mr. Garland’s plans, expected to be announced Friday afternoon, come as Republican-led state legislatures push to enact new restrictive voting laws.

In more than a dozen states, at least 22 new laws have been passed that make it more difficult to vote, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive public policy institute that is part of the New York University School of Law.

Democrats have filed lawsuits against some new voting laws, but that litigation could take years to wind its way through the courts and may have little power to stop those laws from impacting upcoming elections.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/us/politics/merrick-garland-voting-rights.html

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

94. YAY!

So glad to hear this, thank you!

[wnylib]

127. I hope he addresses the issue of election officials

being given the power to overturn vote outcomes. That has got to be a violation of the basic right to vote because it nullifies the votes that have been cast, in effect, disenfranchising the people whose votes get overturned.

[onetexan]

133. WOOPPPP!!! K&R!! thank u for posting the link. Hope the original poster w add it to the thread.

[elleng]

134. Hope it works.

[TomDaisy]

12. I reserve judgement until I see what actually happens

[StarfishSaver]

16. Oh, brother

Funny how people will jump to conclusions based on little information that Garland and Biden and Congressional Democrats aren't doing enough and are going to cave in the future.

But when they announce in great detail what they're going to do, the response from some is "I'll reserve judgment to see what actually happens ..."

It seems that, in some quarters "reserving judgment" is only a thing when it comes to refusing to give Democrats credit for anything.

[Hortensis]

20. As long as we vote our claimed principles. We can be weak

in faith and commitment every other day for years as long as we don't fail then.

And most do. It not for the few...

[Marrah_Goodman]

24. I think reserving judgement is good

Words are words. Waiting to see what they actually do.

[StarfishSaver]

36. Reserving judgment often is a good thing

And it would be good if people also reserved judgment before proclaiming three months into his term that Garland isn't doing anything, is a weakling, a sellout, and not up to the job.

That "reserving judgment" thing is only credible if it applies across the board and not only when someone wants to dismiss or downplay good things the AG and administration are doing.

[gab13by13]

46. I don't look at people questioning why DOJ

wasn't intervening in Arizona as a bad thing, public outcry can be a good thing. Legislators from 7 other states have visited the Cyber Ninjas to copy their fraudit. It's better to stop bad laws before they are enacted. Those other states considering fraudits may think twice now that DOJ is involved. Newly approved head of the civil rights division of DOJ, Kristen Clarke, makes me feel at ease, she is a tough cookie.

[StarfishSaver]

48. Public outcry is a good thing

But another good thing is before the public starts crying out, they learn about what they're crying out over so they know whether what they're demanding is possible and make sure they understand why the people they're berating are or aren't doing what they think they should or shouldn't do.

Otherwise, they don't act as a valuable pressure point, but are just a distraction and and obstacle.

[ancianita]

63. +1 This. The OTHER good thing about "before..."

In a nutshell this defines much of media reporting, public 'skepticism' and opinion.

[mcar]

104. Nothing is ever good enough for some, it seems

[brush]

13. Rachel Maddow chided him on his non-action on this a couple of nights ago.

Now he announces this, finally. It's welcome but it shouldn't take a dress down from a cable news host to get the DOJ on the job on this.

[StarfishSaver]

18. You think that this extremely complex and in-depth plan Garland announced only sprung into being

two nights ago after Maddow criticized him?

This has obviously been in the works for some time and has nothing to do with anything a tv news personality said 43 hours ago. At most, DOJ may have moved up the announcement of what they were going to do to shut down the "DOJ isn't doing anything" crowd. But this plan is no way a response to anything Rachel Maddow said.

[brush]

21. You're correct. It just that the silence was getting loud. It's welcome.

[StarfishSaver]

28. "The silence was loud" because too many people have been screaming that nothing was happening

instead of even considering the possibility that lots happens behind the scenes that they aren't aware of.

Maybe folk will realize that often silence means sh*t is getting done and if they just wait a minute they'll find out exactly what's going on ...

[brush]

34. Ok, ok. I was too impatient.

[StarfishSaver]

37. You definitely aren't alone.

[Hortensis]

26. Brush, he promised this before he was sworn in.

Not only that, it's a very big part of the very big job he was appointed to do. nt

[brush]

31. You're right. I was too impatient, what with all the GOP...

vote suppression bills getting passed all over the place.

[mcar]

35. Do you really think he made this speech because of a cable show host chastising him?

[brush]

38. Ok, ok. I've already been balled out by Hortensis and StarfishSaver.

I was too impatient.

[Hortensis]

45. Lol. He has a long list of to-dos and listed the laws he'll be

using every provision of to accomplish them; but with the Voting Rights Act's preclearance provision gone since 2006, he really wants the additional power tools S1/HR1 and the John Lewis Act will give him. We'll see.

[mcar]

105. We all need more patience because this is going to take time

I admit, I want things to happen quickly too. But the wheels of justice don't move quickly.

[dianaredwing]

56. I seriously doubt

that Merrick waits for Maddow's 'dress down' before making major decisions. This had to have been in the works for a while. I like Maddow too, but the press is the press and the DOJ is the DOJ. They have different priorities and different time frames within which to operate. If Maddow gets something wrong she gets negative feedback. If Merrick does something wrong, well, look at Barr.

[brush]

64. See post 35.

[TomDaisy]

84. I suspect he got a dress down from Biden.

[xmas74]

103. Probably not

Something of this magnitude isn't something you just jump in and make an uninformed announcement. The statement was made because they're ready to act, not talk.

I'd rather have silence with future action than lots of talk with no action. Anything else reminds me of the Fitzmas that never happened.

[Squeaky41]

14. Garland Voting Rights History and Plans Forward

MSNBC had it!

[Marrah_Goodman]

22. Well, that is good and more civil right lawyers is good

I don't like some of the things that have been happening in his deptartment, but these sound promising.

[triron]

66. I am also holding feeling reservedly good about this. We'll see what actually happens.

[BGBD]

29. Ok, I didn't understand what your headline said at first

They are going to war FOR voting rights. Excellent.

[lagomorph777]

53. Same happened to me.

When I pointed it out, people said I was attacking Democrats.

[MerryHolidays]

135. Agreed. The OP title is ambiguous at best, but the substance of the OP is not

This is great news. Indeed, the Republicans have been "going to war on voting rights" , and the United States is now "going to war against voting rights interference." Ambiguous language aside, this is the key point.

Merrick Garland has inherited an unbelievable mess that Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr, and, most of all, trump, created. He has only been AG for a few months, and I am sure that there are TONS of things that are going on behind the scenes to address the disasters of the last four years at the Justice Department. And at this stage, I have no need to know what they are, unless AG Garland chooses to tell us, as he and his senior staff have really only started. Give them time and the benefit of the doubt. We will know developments in due course.

"Going to war against voting rights interference" is precisely what the Justice Department should be working on. By contrast, the Justice Department should not be wasting time on nonsense like determining whether trump is protected by governmental tort immunity in the E. Jean Carroll case over significant allegations of defamation and rape/sexual assault. This is no business of the United States, and it diverts resources of all sorts away from absolutely critical issues like defending voting rights.

I have full faith in Merrick Garland because I have full faith in Joe Biden. We voted for President Biden, and he chose Merrick Garland as the US AG, and the Senate approved the nomination. That is good enough for me, and I will absolutely not reserve judgment on my support of the Justice Department under Merrick Garland. I can criticize the Justice Department for things like continuing to intervene in the Carroll case mentioned above. However, that does not, in any way, affect my total support and appreciation for what the Garland Justice Department is doing overall.

AG Garland has to be given time and latitude to fix the last four years and the vicious "war on the Justice Department" initiated by the Rs.

[mcar]

33. I got chills listening to him

[budkin]

39. It has to be more than talk

We need ACTION. NOW.

[StarfishSaver]

47. OK. Whatever

[drray23]

41. yes ! that letter the department send to Arizona a few weeks ago

was the opening Salvo. Now they are moving onto the next step.

[monkeyman1]

44. he typically can tie republican bs up for year's in court ! past election's !!!

[MineralMan]

49. Wait! What? I Thought Merrick Garland Wasn't Doing Anything...

And now it appears that he has been very busy doing things, but not making press statements about what he is doing.

So, will people start liking him now? Let's watch and see...

Some of us here have been defending Garland all along. I'm one of them. So there!

[StarfishSaver]

51. It won't matter to some people

We're already seeing, "Let's wait and see what happens" or my favorite so far, "We need reserve judgment until we see how this turns out."

Funny how folk don't feel the need to "reserve judgment until we see how this turns out" when it comes to concluding three months into his term that Garland is a big, weak nothingburger. When it comes to criticizing him, the judgments come fast, early and strong.

But, you know how it goes ...

[MineralMan]

52. It all seems pretty transparent to me, really.

I mean...really...

[StarfishSaver]

54. Just look down

⬇⬇⬇

[MineralMan]

55. LOL! Indeed!

[Andy823]

70. Funny thing is

it seems to always be the same people making those comments!

[speaknow]

50. That remains to be seen!

[MineralMan]

58. Uh, Dude. We just saw the AG on the teevee.

Maybe you weren't watching.

It IS being seen.

[orangecrush]

68. Not like people

Have any reason to be impatient, right?

I see the impatience as a positive thing.

If we were all REALLY, REALLY, PATIENT, NONE OF US WOULD EVER CALL OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, WRITE LETTERS, ORGANIZE OR MARCH, ALL WE NEED TO DO IS BE PATIENT AND EVERYTHING WILL BE JUUUSST FINE.

TRUST ME!

[MineralMan]

73. Well, I'm patient, but I do all of those things anyhow.

I have been doing them since 1962. Over the years, I have noticed that it is often those who do the most complaining are the ones least likely to communicate with lawmakers and other elected officials. Funny how that works.

Maybe you have a different experience than I do.

[StarfishSaver]

76. Some people think that ranting on social media is activism

And as long as they vote every couple of years and post lots of outrage, they've gone above and beyond the call of duty.

[MineralMan]

81. Yes, indeed. Posting on DU is NOT activism.

It has a very, very limited audience, most of which is already made up of Democrats, liberals and progressives.

DU is a great place to vent and to discuss politics. However as an influence on public opinion, it's not all that.

I make a point of mentioning DU to people. I have yet to have found a single person who has ever heard of it. I find that interesting. A couple have later come to the site, but most just say, "What is that?"

[orangecrush]

78. Right there with you

I put my money whereby mouth is

[LetMyPeopleVote]

62. This makes me smile

Link to tweet

[Niagara]

106. +1000

[ibegurpard]

65. Excellent

This is not the sort of initiative you throw together on the fly over a few days so those poo-pooing this need to put a sock in it.

[ShazzieB]

99. Amen to this!

Too many naysayers here for my tastes. Too many people in too big of a hurry to throw in the towel.

I'm encouraged, heartened, and yes, excited about this. Anyone who thinks I shouldn't be is entitled to their opinion, but welcome to keep that opinion to themself.

I am really looking forward to seeing what happens!

[Mme. Defarge]

67. I am more worried about Republican state legislatures

overturning election results. Of course that would indirectly impact voter access by overturning the will of voters, but can the Justice department address that issue?

[StarfishSaver]

69. That's one of the things Garland said DOJ is planning to go after

[Deminpenn]

71. Thinking the Rs might start realizing they've

stepped on their own you-know-what with all these voter suppression bills.

[LeftInTX]

90. All the DOJ can do is overturn a bill or part of a bill via court cases

I don't think they regret these bills. They will also fund raise off these court cases.

[Mme. Defarge]

79. Great!

Just skimmed through the latest WP article which seemed to indicate that.

[ananda]

74. He said he still needs help from Congress and Senate...

with passage of voting rights legislation.

[Paladin]

83. I'll believe it when I see it. (nt)

[StarfishSaver]

85. LOL

OK.

[Paladin]

86. Your baseless optimism is completely without humor. (nt)

[StarfishSaver]

87. OK

Whatever

[mcar]

107. Classic DU response (by some) to a Democratic administration

"Why aren't they doing something? Why aren't they doing something?"

They announce they are doing something.

"I'll believe it when I see it."

Other versions after much complaining about not using the "bully pulpit" when Dem leader uses said pulpit:

"Talk is cheap."

Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

[StarfishSaver]

110. "It's not going to make any difference ...

the courts are rigged or DOJ is weak or Congressional Democrats are cowards"

It's almost like some people really don't want them to succeed.

[mcar]

111. I've been here so long I remember

a certain contingent who washed their hands of President Obama on his first inauguration day because he didn't immediately do...whatever.

Some people don't want us to succeed. Some can't seem to quit the idea that getting a Democratic president elected with a very slim majority means everything will change for the better instantaneously. Also, why can't we act like Republicans? Or LBJ? Or FDR?

[yaesu]

88. for me, seeing is believing. I shell wait and see before I clap. nt

[StarfishSaver]

89. I assume that also means you'll wait and see before criticizing Garland for

not doing enough, fast enough as some have done?

[Disaffected]

115. Are all these cheap shots

necessary?

[AnrothElf]

91. Sorry but I had to see the clapping hands...

... because generally we go to war ON our enemies. We go to war FOR our allies.

Don't mean be grammar nazzz but it's a clickbait title

[TeamProg]

93. Scared ne for a second. He's going to WAR FOR VOTING rights.

Not war ON voting rights.

[StarfishSaver]

95. He's going to war ON voting rights, not against them

Had I said he's "starting A war on voting rights," that would have been equivalent to saying he was going to war against them. But implicit in the statement "going to war on x" is that the war is over that issue, not against it.

And even if someone found the phrase ambiguous, the handclap in the post made clear which meaning applied. Context matters.

And this is the last post I will respond to on the topic.

[TeamProg]

100. 'Going to WAR ON Drugs!' Does not suggest FOR drugs, see how that works?

' He's starting a war FOR voting rights' still makes more sense.

'Going to WAR ON air pollution!'
'Going to WAR ON litter!'
'Going to WAR ON high prices!'
'Going to WAR ON Viet Nam!'
'Going to WAR ON the GOP!'
'Going to WAR ON Crime!'


You wrote::

""" But implicit in the statement "going to war on x" is that the war is over that issue, not against it. ""

???

[TwilightZone]

123. Agreed.

The emoji helps with added context, but the OP is widely open to interpretation. My first reaction was exactly the same as many others. I'm not sure why the OP can't see how this could be so clearly misconstrued.

[bearsfootball516]

96. Much needed!!

[WarGamer]

97. SCOTUS is going to be busy...

[Red Mountain]

102. What number is he doubling?

At the very least he's going to need money and lawyers.


[link:

|

[bdamomma]

108. Go after them

please they are the minority.

[garybeck]

109. I'll believe it when I see it

The other side has been at war for months on this and all of a sudden we're supposed to think that the doj is going to start trying to do something about it? We are way behind them. The audit in Arizona should never have been allowed to take place. There should have been a federal lawsuit the second it started. Where was our "war" then? Are they going to allow other audits to take place? Like I said I believe it when I see it

[questionseverything]

120. Ballots, voters list and ect are public records

The problem with what happened in az is, they gave out the originals instead of copies

The “audit “ has no legal weight for several reasons. The election is already certified, by giving out actual ballots instead of copies they made it impossible for conclusions to be double checked and the pretend auditors broke any possible chain of custody by being non transparent.

[garybeck]

143. no

it was against federal law to give out the ballots. period.
there should have been a lawsuit. period.

[questionseverything]

145. Copies of the ballots are legal

Just like copies of the paper work

I agree giving out the originals broke federal law

[garybeck]

146. They have the originals.

What else is there to discuss? If they gave copies we would be having a completely different discussion

[StarfishSaver]

121. Let's assume they took this up late (they didn't, but let's assume they did)

Why complain now that they have taken it up. Why not just be glad they did and support what they're trying to do?

[garybeck]

144. they have done nothing.

give me something to actually cheer about and I will.

i don't really understand your point.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

113. Great

Nice to have a justice department that cares about justice.

[speaknow]

117. How far is that going to go?

When he is using left over Barr's people?
Come on wake up people.
Any Dept that has problems is because of
those that are left overs causing it, they all
should go every department.

[StarfishSaver]

119. This has absolutely nothing to Garland's announcement about voting rights

[colsohlibgal]

118. Encouraging

We’ll see how aggressively he goes to war.

[SYFROYH]

122. Clearly responding to DU outrage

[StarfishSaver]

129. You're joking

But several people here are claiming that Garland came up with this plan in response to the criticism he was getting this week ... One poster said that the critics should pat themselves on the back.

Unreal.

[Hekate]

130. KnR and I join your applause of Garland. It's going to take a helluva fight.

[eppur_se_muova]

131. More like OVER voting rights. nt

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

132. "Watch what they do, not what they say."

That's Rachel Maddow's favorite saying.

I'm going to take a wait-and-see approach. I don't want to get my hopes up too high, like I did with Obama. Bush and Cheney had committed war crimes, and he let them skate because he thought pursuing them would damage his relationship with the Repugs. Wrong! His relationship with them was established on the day he was inaugurated, when Moscow Mitch told his caucus his goal was to make Obama a one-term president. You know, like he's trying to do with Biden. Hopefully all the experience Joe has had in the Senate and as VP will enable him to run circles around the Turtle.

[PatrickforB]

140. Goddamn right!

Since they won't end the filibuster so the Senate can actually DO ITS JOB, this is a great plan B. These 'laws' are illegal.

[sheshe2]

141. ...

Martin Luther King, Jr. :“the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Change takes a long time, but it does happen.

Thank you.

[BobTheSubgenius]

142. Fantastic news!!!

With enough political support behind the DOJ's effort, something tangible might get done!!! I was not exactly sanguine about this situation, to say the least. I'm still not, but I can see a bit of movement towards it.

If "sanguinity" was actually a word...

[MarineCombatEngineer]

147. Sounds like AG Garland has just called AZ State Sen. Wendy Rogers bluff

about putting him in an AZ jail if he attempts to "interfere" in AZ election laws.

Hey Wendy, it's time to put up or STFU.