Merrick Garland and the Rule of Law
10 June 2023 By Abiodun Kareem Giwa
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland is the attorney general of the United States. He pulls the lever on issues about maintenance of the rule of law. According to USA Today, President Obama first nominated him for Supreme Court but was blocked by GOP Senate. President Joseph Biden renominated him for the office of attorney general.
There is something special about Garland's last name representing a wreath of flowers and leaves worn on the head or hung as a decoration, a symbol of attraction and attention. For some time now, the attorney general has assumed public awareness for the role of his office, but unattractive. It is a reminder of a saying that it is uneasy for a head that wears the crown.
Garland occupies a sensitive position. He should apply the law to all citizens without favor or otherwise, irrespective of political affiliation, black or white. How he uses the law decides how people from all walks of life perceive him. And now all eyes have turned towards Garland with allegations of bias in applying the rule. The DOJ and the FBI under his watch are under scrutiny. Some analysts opine it should not be the case if the rule of law were uncompromised.
Is there an actual bias in applying the law in Garland's office? It is the type of question the AG attempted to avoid when he appointed a special counsel for President Joseph Biden's alleged mishandling of classifieds soon after the nomination of Jack Smith for President Trump's case. Political observers opined at the time that Garland would be running the risk of an allegation of bias if he failed to do the same as he has done in Trump's case, considering the trove of classified materials Biden allegedly has from his days as a senator and vice president.
President Biden had these materials in three or more places, including his car garage. When Garland appointed Smith as special counsel to oversee the investigation of Trump's classified papers, Biden's possession was unknown. The AG faced an ethical trap by appointing a special counsel for Trump. An ethical dilemma emerged with Biden's case. If he had not established a special counsel in Trump's case, he would have escaped appointing one for Biden.
With Trump's indictment, Garland surely would be asking himself how he would handle Biden's case. Mike Pence's clearance of wrongdoing before Trump's charge is insufficient to salvage Garland. Most observers said Pence was not the object the Democrats were after but Trump. And people know Garland would not be after his boss for any reason. A whistleblower had charged the DOJ in a slow-working-in Congressional investigation. Another case of bias propped up over a document another said was with the FBI detailing wrongdoing against Biden. And it took Congressional Oversight Committee a wring of the hand for the FBI to agree to show Oversight Committee members the document at a unique location. Some have said the FBI did not initially agree it had the paper.
If Biden is cleared of wrongdoing, considering these instances of bias, how would Garland expect the public to respond? People say imagine it is Trump that the FBI has a document of wrongdoing; would it be kept covered?
Maintaining the rule of law calls for impartiality. This development could lead to trouble for Garland and calls for his resignation unless Biden goes the way of Trump and both to fight their case in a court of law. That would be wise. They are both presidential candidates. You cannot fold the hands of one and allow the other free reign. Garland lacks a moral ground here. There is nothing more manifest than the failure of the DOJ. And this goes a long way to justify the Senate's disapproval of the current AG for the Supreme Court.
There is something special about Garland's last name representing a wreath of flowers and leaves worn on the head or hung as a decoration, a symbol of attraction and attention. For some time now, the attorney general has assumed public awareness for the role of his office, but unattractive. It is a reminder of a saying that it is uneasy for a head that wears the crown.
Garland occupies a sensitive position. He should apply the law to all citizens without favor or otherwise, irrespective of political affiliation, black or white. How he uses the law decides how people from all walks of life perceive him. And now all eyes have turned towards Garland with allegations of bias in applying the rule. The DOJ and the FBI under his watch are under scrutiny. Some analysts opine it should not be the case if the rule of law were uncompromised.
Is there an actual bias in applying the law in Garland's office? It is the type of question the AG attempted to avoid when he appointed a special counsel for President Joseph Biden's alleged mishandling of classifieds soon after the nomination of Jack Smith for President Trump's case. Political observers opined at the time that Garland would be running the risk of an allegation of bias if he failed to do the same as he has done in Trump's case, considering the trove of classified materials Biden allegedly has from his days as a senator and vice president.
President Biden had these materials in three or more places, including his car garage. When Garland appointed Smith as special counsel to oversee the investigation of Trump's classified papers, Biden's possession was unknown. The AG faced an ethical trap by appointing a special counsel for Trump. An ethical dilemma emerged with Biden's case. If he had not established a special counsel in Trump's case, he would have escaped appointing one for Biden.
With Trump's indictment, Garland surely would be asking himself how he would handle Biden's case. Mike Pence's clearance of wrongdoing before Trump's charge is insufficient to salvage Garland. Most observers said Pence was not the object the Democrats were after but Trump. And people know Garland would not be after his boss for any reason. A whistleblower had charged the DOJ in a slow-working-in Congressional investigation. Another case of bias propped up over a document another said was with the FBI detailing wrongdoing against Biden. And it took Congressional Oversight Committee a wring of the hand for the FBI to agree to show Oversight Committee members the document at a unique location. Some have said the FBI did not initially agree it had the paper.
If Biden is cleared of wrongdoing, considering these instances of bias, how would Garland expect the public to respond? People say imagine it is Trump that the FBI has a document of wrongdoing; would it be kept covered?
Maintaining the rule of law calls for impartiality. This development could lead to trouble for Garland and calls for his resignation unless Biden goes the way of Trump and both to fight their case in a court of law. That would be wise. They are both presidential candidates. You cannot fold the hands of one and allow the other free reign. Garland lacks a moral ground here. There is nothing more manifest than the failure of the DOJ. And this goes a long way to justify the Senate's disapproval of the current AG for the Supreme Court.
Comment Box is loading comments...
