I gotta wonder if Garland is hoping tRump will pass away or be diagnosed with dementia.

[Beastly Boy]

98. Bingo! You are slowly getting there.

In the absence of a more golden standard, whatever the DOJ has decided to prosecute (or not) in the past and the outcome of all US court decisions ARE the de-facto gold standard, whether you take them as such or not. These standards, however, are not examples of the rule of law. They are examples of APPLYING the rule of law in administering justice. So if you wish to talk about justice in the legal sense, you must at least be aware of this gold standard rather than outright dismissing it.

Which goes directly to you opining with contempt on how poorly the institutions responsible for maintaining the rule of law sometimes do their jobs. You cannot possibly gauge how poorly the institutions are doing their jobs without being aware of what the standards are. Otherwise you are doomed to comparing a perceived quantity to an unknown quantity. A totally useless exercise, in my humble opinion. And I must admit, I am incapable of grasping the merits of engaging in useless exercises.

And guess what, I am completely on your side about the difference between the rule of law and its real-life practice, but something tells me you ain't gonna like it. Because your challenges to how the rule of law is being applied are antithetical to the established definition of the rule of law. This is exactly what constitutes contempt for the rule of law, and I thank you for demonstrating this with the above examples, in which you are repeatedly comparing the non-events of your speculations with events that exemplify the real rule-based practice of law.

Couldn't have done it better myself.