It’s obvious why they wanted Garland on SCOTUS so bad. He’s a rubber stamp on whatever bull the liberals want to cram down America’s throat. That’s how he’ll be as Attorney General, too. A personal valet.
Like Leahy accidentally spilled the beans about today, the Democrats have a singular agenda item over the next four years: “rooting out hate.” Like Big Tech’s “incitement” agenda, the purpose of the nebulous terminology is to give them a blank check to eliminate their opponents on the right once and forever.
Garland said yesterday he would prosecute the “white supremacists” who attacked the capitol on January 6th. That’s the overarching “hate” narrative that Leahy was calling on this morning in his remarks. It’s what every Democrat keeps saying. The reason is obvious: they narrow it down to this one term, which is a term they control the definition for. They call Gina Carano a white supremacist you think they won’t apply it to whoever the hell they want?
And they want to disarm you, too, and Garland is A-OK with that one, as well, as he demonstrated with his answer to Mike Lee asking about Biden wanting to ban AR-15s.
During his campaign, Biden vowed to ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, pushing universal background checks on gun buyers, and holding gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products. So, Lee asked Garland’s view on each of those.
“As I’m sure you know, the president is a strong supporter of gun control and has been an advocate for all of his life,” Garland told Lee. “The role of the Justice Department is to advance the policy program of the administration as long as it is consistent with the law.”
When Lee asked if Garland supports banning certain types of firearms, he responded, “Where there is room under the law for the president’s policies to be pursued, then I think the president is entitled to pursue them.”
When Lee asked if Garland supports universal background checks, he said he supports checks to allow people legally entitled to buy guns to obtain them — but also to prohibit sales to those “we are concerned about because they’re a threat, because they’re felons, or for whatever reason, [are] barred by the law” from buying them.
When Lee asked if Garland would support holding gun manufacturers liable for injuries or deaths caused by their firearms, the nominee said that while the president may have pushed that, “I have not thought myself deeply about this. I don’t think it raises a Second Amendment issue.”
I was disappointed that Judge Garland declined to condemn dangerous, radical positions previously taken by fellow DOJ nominees, Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke.
“For whatever reason” is a great line. You already said “whatever” reason. So did Leahy. It’s whatever reason you make up.
Welcome to Biden’s America, folks. If you can call it America, when he’s through with it.