Who should serve as AG in the next Biden term?

[Beausoleil]

Should it be Garland or someone else?

Should it be some other Federalist Society hack? Or some other choice to placate the right-wing?

I think it should be someone who won't appoint Special Counsels as window dressing or only when backed into a corner. Or someone who wouldn't wait for a Congressional investigation to complete before finally deciding to appoint a Special Counsel two years after an insurrection.

I think, in hindsight, that Garland was a poor choice for SCOTUS and Biden should have avoided appointing him as AG. He's not up to the job, IMHO.

Avoiding the appearance of being political is as bad as being political as it turns out.

I like Neal Katyal.

[Groundhawg]

1. I want Biden to choose.

[Beausoleil]

2. I think Biden has done a fantastic job

It being his choice wasn't in dispute.

In this one area, I believe his choice wasn't optimal, and it has bitten him in the ass.

In my opinion, Garland should step aside for the next Biden term.

[Bucky]

7. I think all the cabinet routinely step aside each 4 years

If I'm not mistaken, this tradition only dates back to the 1973 Nixon-to-Nixon transition. However there was discussion among the 1945 Cabinet that they'd need to find good moments after the war to each resign so that Truman could have his own people in office.

[Beausoleil]

13. Agreed

It's only because Holder was not replaced until he stepped down in 2014, that I suggested that Biden might not replace Garland until he voluntarily steps down.

[brooklynite]

31. No they don't

That would imply that changes needed to be made. Most of the cabinet remains in place.

[SocialDemocrat61]

63. It's sort of yes & no

Do Cabinet Secretaries Get The Boot at Term's End?

By Ann Compton

There is an unwritten tradition in Washington that cabinet secretaries all submit pro forma letters of resignation at the end of a first term for a re-elected president, but apparently it doesn't really work that way.

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/do-cabinet-secretaries-get-the-boot-at-terms-end

[elleng]

78. They may routinely OFFER their resignations,

so POTUS doesn't have to 'fire' any.

[edhopper]

3. If Biden wins

with a Dem Senate, somebody who will piss off the Repugs and go after the people in Congress who helped in the Insurrection.

[Groundhawg]

25. How could Biden loose?

[republianmushroom]

33. You are going to be surprised at how many people will vote for trump, if, he is a candidate.

Don't get over confident. Remember 2016 and how could the democrats loose ?
It happened and it could happen again. Hopefully It won't, but ?

[LiberalFighter]

47. Part of the reason Hillary lost was because James Comey reopened an investigation near the election.

If he had any real intelligence it would not had been reopened. The problem was he didn't understand how emails work or the practice followed when receiving or sending emails. He is a total doofus.

[republianmushroom]

54. Agree, but that was only a small part of the reason trump won.

More was lackadaisical voting by some democrats, over confident, (dems) couldn't loose.

[bottomofthehill]

108. Don't forget the single issue purists

The if I don’t get my way, I won’t bother to show up and vote. That is our biggest danger.

[brush]

86. We won't be surprised. 74 million voted for the orange orge in 2020...

81 million voted for Biden though. America has a lot of low-info fools easily manipulated by disinformation.

It's always been so.

[edhopper]

43. A handful of swing voters in key States

not like it hasn't happened before.

[Celerity]

45. The simplest minimum EV ways? Map stays the same except Trump flips only GA and PA, or flips only GA, WI, and AZ, or

it stays the same except Trump flips GA, AZ, NV, and NE-2 (that would end in the nightmare of nightmares, a 269-269 tie, with the House electing Trump, as due to gerrymandering in WI, FL, and now NC, it is impossiple to pull them under the 26 state delegations needed to elect Trump). Another way, the map stays the same (Biden wins GA in this one) except Trump flips AZ, WI, PA, and also the map stays the same (Biden wins GA in this one as well) except Trump flips NV, AZ, PA.

The map stays the same except Trump flips only GA and PA

The map stays the same except Trump flips only GA, WI, and AZ

The map stays the same except Trump flips GA, AZ, NV, and NE-2

The map stays the same (Biden wins GA in this one) except Trump flips AZ, WI, PA

The map stays the same (Biden wins GA in this one) except Trump flips NV, AZ, PA

[LiberalFighter]

50. It is unlikely Drumpf gets the flips he needs. Especially with Pennsylvania.

I don't see Nevada or Arizona going either. Arizona likely has a big bunch that died from Covid.

[Celerity]

61. Still, those are definitely within the realm of possibilities, as opposed to many who say it is basically impossible for

the orange fucker to win.

Covid will play, IMHO, a minor role compared to the big '1 A- 3 I's' challenges that Biden will face (unfairly, but they still are front and centre)

A - Age (fitness, energy needed to be POTUS for 5 more years)

I - Immigration

I - Inflation of prices (especially food, rent, petrol)

I - International issues (especially the Israel/Palestinian conflict)


Trump has age/fitness issues as well, obviously, and has a HUGE wild card: IF he is criminally convicted on any of the cases, he faces a massive fall-off of Rethug voters, probably large enough to hand Biden a very substantial Electoral College (and popular vote as well, of course) win, barring some other paradigm-changing exogenous shock that plays out in a negative fashion for Biden.

[Polybius]

66. The Senate elects the VP though

So it would be Trump/Harris.

[NYC Liberal]

67. While it would be amusing

I would not want her to stay. She would not be safe. Just look at what almost happened with Pence, and he was picked by Trump…

[Celerity]

70. Only if we retain the Senate, and with WV 99.9% flipped to R, we have to defend all the rest, as we are very

unlikely to flip any of the only 10 seats (versus our 23) that the Rethugs have to defend. All 10 are in Red, mostly deep Red States.

Even if it is 50/50 (what it would be if only WV and no other State flips either way), there is huge legal dispute as to whether the VP can cast a tie.breaking vote (in this case, Harris, for herself) in terms of choosing the VP in a disputed EC election. And even that possiblity goes away if we get to noon, January 20th, 2025 with no Senate voted-upon winner, as then Harris is no longer VP and thus no longer the President of the Senate.

I have little expectations/hopes that we flip TX or FL, which I know is an unpopular opinion for some here, but one that I have held for ages, when I looked ahead to 2024 (my posts on this are here on DU).

We also have to depend many seats that are not locks at all.

MT
OH
AZ
NV
PA
WI
MI
MD (with Hogan now running, it is now no longer a pure lock)

Hogan was one of the 4 hugely popular Rethug governors I feared would run for the Seante in 2024. The other 3 have (so far) said no: Sandoval (NV), Baker (MA), and Ducey (AZ, but he would have a hard time winnning the insane MAGAt-dominated Rethug primary process)

[dpibel]

83. Sorry, wut?

The Senate elects the VP?

Where do you get that?

[Polybius]

87. The Constitution

But as others have said, it will be the new Senate, so a Democratic majority isn't certain.

[dpibel]

95. XII amendment

Appears for all the world to say that the number of electors determines the identity of both the President and the Vice.

I'm sure you can help me understand how it is that the Senate determines (as I understand you) the VP but not the Pres.

[Polybius]

96. We were talking about in the event of a 269-269 tie

If no one gets to 270, the every state gets one vote for President, but the Senate choses the VP. Would be interesting in a 50-50 tie. Harris would pick her future.

[Polybius]

65. How could he lose?

The person he's running against gets more Electoral Votes.

[maveric]

97. Lose

[hamsterjill]

107. Please don't say that in earshot of someone who lives in Texas.

Too many crazies down here to take anything for granted. We are a lost cause so I implore all in other parts of the country to save us. Vote!!!

[BeyondGeography]

34. Sally Yates eg

Aka the person he should have originally picked.

[edhopper]

44. Great choice!

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Depending on the speed of Justice,

Jack Smith.

[Think. Again.]

9. That's my thought too.

[Bucky]

5. Obama nominated Garland, miscalculating that Republicans loved their ideas more than holding power

He was figuring that in replacing Scalia before a Republican Senate, he could get a couple of centrist Senators to act in the national interest over partisan advantage since Garland was relatively unobjectionable .

Major miscalculation.

[DoBW]

6. Heeerrre's Jackky

I think Jack Smith would put fear into the hearts of those who think they're above the law



tenor.com

[Think. Again.]

10. Not only that, but...

...Smith's professionalism and integrity are beyond question.

[MOMFUDSKI]

8. ABG.

Anybody but garland.

[Emile]

11. A registered Democrat for a change!

[LeftInTX]

42. Garland was first appointed by Bill Clinton in 1997,

He was appointed to the DC Circuit by Obama.

[Emile]

64. and he's not a registered Democrat.

[LeftInTX]

71. How do you know?

Do you have his voting record?

[Emile]

72. He is a registered independent that I do know.

[LeftInTX]

73. What does that mean? Kagan and Sotomayor are not listed by party affiliation

[Emile]

81. It means, it would be nice to have a registered Democrat.

[LeftInTX]

88. The problem is: If an AG comes from the Federal Judiciary or State's Attorney office, their voting records are hidden

That's why Kagan's and Sotomayor's are not indicated because their party affiliation is hidden. They live in the DC area.

An ACP participant Address Confidentiality Program is anyone who "opts out" of public records. Trust me, all federal judges, supreme court judges and state's attorneys opt out.

In Texas all judges and law enforcement, DA's etc are not in public records. I work for campaigns.

Maryland:
ACP participants, law enforcement personnel, persons being threatened, victim of or witness to felony, others on the grounds that the disclosure of the individual’s address poses a safety threat or is likely to lead to an unwarranted and serious invasion of privacy.

Virginia:
ACP participants, active or retired law-enforcement officers, anyone granted a protective order, anyone who is in fear of personal safety, any active or retired federal or state judge or attorney, a person who has been approved to be a foster parent.


https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/access-to-and-use-of-voter-registration-lists

All states have opt out programs.

[Emile]

100. It's not that hard to see if someone is a member of the Federalist Society.

[LeftInTX]

104. Why did Obama and Biden nominate him?

Obama nominated him twice. In 2013 (DC bench) and 2016.
And why did Garland defend abortion laws, voting rights and did what he could to stop Greg Abbott?

Don't see him on the list:

Current officeholders
Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts (disputed)[note 1]
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito[7]
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas[7]
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch[51]
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh[52][53]
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett[11]
FBI Director Christopher A. Wray
United States Court of Appeals Judge (D.C. Cir.) Neomi Rao[54]
United States Court of Appeals Judge (9th Cir.) Lawrence VanDyke[55]
United States Court of Appeals Senior Judge (5th Cir.) Edith Brown Clement[56]
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Ada E. Brown[57]
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon[58]
Senator Ted Cruz, Republican Senator of Texas[59]
Senator Josh Hawley, Republican Senator of Missouri[60]
Senator Todd Young, Republican Senator of Indiana
Florida Supreme Court Justice Meredith Sasso[61]
Former officeholders
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (who served as the original faculty advisor to the organization)[62]
United States Attorney General Edwin Meese[63]
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft[63]
United States Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler, a co-founder of the Federalist Society[5]
United States Solicitor General Theodore Olson[63]
United States Solicitor General Paul Clement[5]
President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate Orrin Hatch[62]
Professor Michael W. McConnell at Stanford Law School and former United States Court of Appeals Judge (10th Cir.)[64]
U.S. Senator and Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham[63]
United States Ambassador to the European Union C. Boyden Gray[63]
United States Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton[63]
United States Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff[65]
General counsel of the Office of Management and Budget and of the Department of Homeland Security Philip Perry[65]
Texas State Representative and Dallas lawyer Bill Keffer[66]
United States Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia[67]
Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division and former acting head of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice Jeffrey Clark[68]
United States Court of Appeals Chief Judge (9th Cir.) Alex Kozinski[63]
United States Court of Appeals Judge (D.C. Cir.) Robert Bork[69]
United States Court of Appeals Judge (D.C. Cir.) Thomas Griffith[70]

[Emile]

105. Why not nominate from the American Constitution Society

at least you would know their political beliefs.

[0rganism]

12. Hillary Clinton

If she wants the job.

Make Assholes Go Apeshit

The pyrotechnics would be amazing

[Beausoleil]

14. I like that!

[DoBW]

16. Acronym is fantastico

gonna spread it

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. I've got the perfect candidate:

Merrick Garland, since he is none of the things you complained about and did none of the things (as you have falsely characterized them ) mentioned in your OP.

Easy-peasy!

Should it be some other Federalist Society hack ? (He’s not)

I think it should be someone who won't appoint Special Counsels as window dressing (he didn’t) or only when backed into a corner(again, he didn’t, - Smith was appointed two days after Trump declared his candidacy, which was the triggering event). Or someone who wouldn't wait for a Congressional investigation to complete before finally deciding to appoint a Special Counsel (he didn’t - see previous comment) two years after an insurrection.

You seem to be under the false impression that Special Counsels are faster, more aggressive, and have other secret super powers that regulat prosecutors don’t.

The primary difference between special counsels and regular prosecutors is an administrative “bubble” created to avoid legal and ethical conflicts.

That’s it.

[Beausoleil]

20. It does seem that Obama selected him to appease the right wing

I did not say that he was a member. Sorry that was implied.

When he appointed Hur but no SC was appointed to investigate Pence, that had the appearance of appeasing the right wing and was an attempt to avoid being political. To me, that is window dressing. The double standard was obvious.

The fact remains that there was little to no investigation of the coup plotters by the DOJ for two years. It does the American people no good to have waited until Trump decided to run again to hold the plotters accountable.

A big difference between a regular prosecution (not required in this case) and a Special Counsel is the subjective report of the SC, which is a requirement. And Hur went to town with a political hit job.

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. Pence was a private citizen, so no SC was justified

The fact remains that there was little to no investigation of the coup plotters by the DOJ for two years.

That’s a false statement.

[Beausoleil]

40. Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were not the coup plotters

What investigation was done by DOJ into the coup plotters before Smith's appointment?

[Fiendish Thingy]

49. I am not your research library

That information has been posted on DU innumerable times by myself and others in the reality-based community.

Turn off cable news, and get a more complete picture of what is currently publicly known about the DOJ investigations, and don’t make assumptions based on the passage of time and a lack of public information.

Also, examine the numerous obstacles Garland overcame, starting with his successful argument to SCOTUS that Trump was not covered by Executive Privilege.

[Beausoleil]

56. The point of the thread was to allow folks to express their opinions

about Garland's fitness for the job and who would be a good replacement if necessary.

Obviously you apparently believe it's not necessary.

Of course, if Trump wins the election, the point is moot.

[Fiendish Thingy]

60. I have no problem hearing a wide range of opinions

But when false statements are made and represented as facts, I am compelled to respond.

[Captain Zero]

82. Frank Figliuzzi

Looks tough, like Jack Webb, to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Figliuzzi

[Ocelot II]

51. Thank you for adding facts and common sense to this thread.

[Fiendish Thingy]

53. And thanks to you too

It often feels like there are just a few of us left in the reality-based community.

[ecstatic]

17. Someone whose natural instinct isn't to coddle and protect republican criminals

Someone interested in equal justice under the law who is willing to hold bad actors in our justice system accountable, including corrupt cops, prosecutors and judges.

I like and value Neal Katyal. I want him to stay right where he is, educating and providing valuable insight to the public. The AG of Minnesota, perhaps? Keith Ellison. Or a black woman who will take the violations against women and people of color seriously.

I get that gender and color shouldn't matter, but apparently it does. Look around. Other than Jack Smith, the only officials who have been willing to hold tRump accountable are all black. Why is that? It's time to shake things up. No more overly cautious individuals who are more concerned about optics than justice and getting things done.

[Beausoleil]

26. Good points!

Keith Ellison or Letitia James would both be excellent choices.

[ananda]

18. I like Lawrence Tribe.

...

[Fiendish Thingy]

55. Tribe has never prosecuted a criminal case in his entire career.

He’s a constitutional scholar, and he’s in his 80’s.

[ananda]

68. Thanks.

I just like him, that's all.

[rurallib]

19. Keith Ellison

[Johonny]

21. Loretta James from New York

She has guts and is a very nice person.

[MichMan]

62. Letitia James?

[Niagara]

79. Do you mean to suggest Loretta Lynch?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Lynch

[Kennah]

22. Glenn Kirschner

[Caliman73]

29. I agree with the choice of Glenn

He has expressed some bias against Trump, but his career speaks for itself. He has been on both sides of the table and his analysis is typically on the law and not simply partisan. He is tough but takes the ethics of the position seriously.

[Firestorm49]

23. Adam Schiff

[Rebl2]

37. Want him for

Senator

[yardwork]

24. How about a liberal Democrat for a change?

[Deep State Witch]

27. Letitia James

Or Fani Willis.

[GreenWave]

28. I nominate myself!

I am a kick ass person when necessary.
If thugs threaten retaliation, bring it on!
Save the USA most expeditiously.
No placating.

[gopiscrap]

30. Hillary Clinton

[brooklynite]

32. Is calling a Biden appointee a "Federalist Society hack" acceptable around here?

And did anyone make the same criticism when Obama nominated him to the SC?

[Beausoleil]

36. The impresson is that he was nominated for SCOTUS because he would be acceptable to the

Republican contolled Senate. Obviously, that did not work out.

I did not specifically state that he was a Federalist Society hack, poor choice of words on my part to imply that a Federalist Society hack would be no worse.

And I recognize that Federalist Society was instrumental in blocking his appointment to SCOTUS.

[Rebl2]

38. Neal Katyal

[Paladin]

41. My sentiments, exactly.

Katyal would be an inspired choice.

[intheflow]

39. Sally Yates.

That's who I wanted when Biden first came on, but he chose Garland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Yates

[Fla Dem]

69. I agree! Some of the other suggestions I can get behind, but Sally would be my 1st choice.

[jcgoldie]

46. If we don't win back the senate then its likely Marrick Garland

[Beausoleil]

48. This is true

for better or worse

[bigtree]

52. I think Kaytal would rather spend his time on tv

...freaking out.

[Naio]

57. Neal Katyal. The best choice

[Ocelot II]

59. Katyal has been an effective appellate lawyer, but

now he seems to spends most of his time opining on MSNBC. I doubt very much that Biden would select a TV personality (especially one who could be accused of a lack of neutrality) over a relatively unknown but highly-respective current judge or prosecutor. I like Katyal as a TV commentator; he's certainly got a solid record as an appellate lawyer, but there are others who are more likely candidates.

[Ocelot II]

58. Whoever he wants.

If he wants Garland to stay on and Garland wants to stay on, it will be Garland. Otherwise it will probably be someone who isn't famous and is well-respected as a currently-active prosecutor or judge. It won't be one of our favorite MSNBC talking legal heads, nor should it be.

[DemocraticPatriot]

74. ANYBODY ELSE with pro-democracy and true 'rule-of-law' credentials....

Give me an RFK reincarnation as the next AG!

OF COURSE it should not be any Federalist Society associate or Republican or GQP MAGAt...

I think Garland might have made a better SCOTUS than AG,
but that seems irrelevant now, as McTurtle blocked the nomination, unconstitutionally,
from receiving any hearing at all, so whoever President Obama nominated did not matter.

(President Obama didn't fight hard enough against that, IMHO--
ought to have called for protests in the streets outside McConnell's local residence!!!)

[Beausoleil]

90. Obama should have told McConnell

That Garland would be seated on the court as silence from the Senate would be considered consent.
If McConnell disagreed, he could have held hearings.

It was the President's prerogative, not the Senate majority leader's, to fill that seat.

[W_HAMILTON]

75. Dan Goldman.

[RockRaven]

76. It depends on whether or not Dems control the House and/or Senate.

If Dems control both, there won't be bullshit hearings and impeachments and confirmation shouldn't be hard. In that case, it should be the biggest hardass Biden can find. If the Repugs control one or both, might as well keep Garland because any replacement will have to be just as mewling.

[elleng]

77. Whomever POTUS wants.

[JT45242]

80. Literally anyone else...

Not quite serious. But Garland has to go.

Maybe a real prosecutor who would go after whomever gave the tours, told the proud boys what windows to break, Gaetz for sex trafficking...

[boston bean]

84. Avoiding appearing political is in itself political.

Its not following facts. Thats for sure.

[brush]

85. Preet Bharara would be a good choice. Garland has to go.

[LeftInTX]

89. Preet would be good!

[DET]

98. Interesting

Haven’t seen Bharara in quite a while. I really like him - intelligent, personable, persuasive, forthright, etc. Seems like he’d be a good candidate.

[mvd]

91. Not Merrick Garland

In fact I would consider firing him if he let a clearly unethical report be released. I like your suggestion. Doug Jones, Letitia James, Elizabeth Warren and Sally Yates also.

[tinrobot]

92. Jack Smith would be a nice choice

[mvd]

94. I thought of him

Might be seen as a conflict of interest but he would be great.

[brooklynite]

93. No reason to change the AG unless President Biden feels the need.

And we all trust President Biden’s judgement.

[W_HAMILTON]

99. You've used this line before.

I take it you didn't read the article posted elsewhere today about how Biden and his team has grown increasingly frustrated by Garland:

Joe Biden has told aides and outside advisers that Attorney General Merrick Garland did not do enough to rein in a special counsel report stating that the president had diminished mental faculties, according to two people close to the president, as White House frustration with the head of the Justice Department grows.

So, anyone expressing their concerns and complaints regarding Garland are simply doing exactly what Biden and his team are doing in private per sources that are actually connected to the man, thank you very much.

[totodeinhere]

101. The president could fire Garland anytime he wants.

Or he could ask for Garland's resignation and I am sure that he would get it if he asked.

[W_HAMILTON]

102. And if you think the shitstorm from that MAGA Special Counsel was something, just wait to see what happens...

...if Biden fired Garland now. Or even at any point up until now, or any point in the near future, given that Garland's DOJ has been investigating his son.

No, we Democrats have to play by the rules. So, let's make sure Biden gets reelected and then see whether or not he (rightfully) shows Garland the door for his feckless and feeble performance as Attorney General.

[SocialDemocrat61]

109. He might feel the need.

White House frustration with Garland grows

The president believes the special counsel investigating his handling of classified documents went beyond his remit. And part of the blame is being placed on the AG.

Joe Biden has told aides and outside advisers that Attorney General Merrick Garland did not do enough to rein in a special counsel report stating that the president had diminished mental faculties, according to two people close to the president, as White House frustration with the head of the Justice Department grows.

The report from special counsel Robert Hur ultimately cleared Biden of any charges stemming from his handling of classified documents that were found at Biden’s think tank and his home. But Hur’s explanation for not bringing charges — that Biden would have persuaded the jury that he was a forgetful old man — upended the presidential campaign and infuriated the White House.

Biden and his closest advisers believe Hur went well beyond his purview and was gratuitous and misleading in his descriptions, according to those two people, who were granted anonymity to speak freely. And they put part of the blame on Garland, who they say should have demanded edits to Hur’s report, including around the descriptions of Biden’s faltering memory.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/white-house-frustration-with-garland-grows-00140813

[MichMan]

103. Hunter

RW would explode

[Beausoleil]

106. LOL!