A thread with some thoughts on Merrick Garland, whom Politico is reporting has been selected as attorney general by President-elect Joe Biden...

Garland is principally famous outside the D.C. legal world for having been nominated to the Supreme Court by President Obama in 2016 and having been shamefully blocked by Senate Republicans for nearly the entire year. This is a shame. And his treatment ithen is not the reason /2/
why he is the perfect choice for Biden for attorney general. Indeed, his martyrdom on this point actually complicates the picture a little bit; while Republicans generally refrained from attacking him, the very fact of the nomination and their stonewalling of it makes ... /3/
...him appear a more divisive figure from a partisan perspective than he actually is. Which is a somewhat backhanded way of saying that Garland is the closest thing to an above-politics figure as exists in American law today. He is among the most admired federal judges /4/
...on the bench from either political movement. He is admired for his intellect, for his integrity and his fidelity to the law and precedent, and for his temperament. He has been on the bench for a long time—since 1997, if memory serves. /5/
And he thus has had no involvement in any of the recent political controversies. He had no hand in the Russia investigation or in Bush v. Gore or in any of the contentious matters that have divided Democrats and Republicans. He is, rather, a universally-respected figure... /6/
(universally, at least, among people who are knowledgeable about American law and the federal judiciary and are not themselves raging partisans) who has been hands off of the set of issues that have made people controversial over the past two decades. /7/
He has not made speeches. He has not written law review articles. He has not given interviews. He has not written books about how to interpret the law. He has just been a judge—and a really really good judge. /8/
But there's another side of Merrick Garland that is critical to his value as attorney general: He has deep experience with the Department of Justice. Back in the mid-1990s, he was the chief aide to Jamie Gorelick, then the deputy attorney general.
Gorelick had a staff that was truly uncommon; I have not seen anything like it in my years watching the department. And Merrick was the first-among-equals star of that particular constellation. There was some very good coverage of him at the time by @dklaidman and others.
What's more, when the Oklahoma City bombing happened, she dispatched him to effectively run the investigative and prosecutorial response. This was a very big deal, and folks like @AitanGoelman, who worked with him in that period, are worth talking to about it.
In other words, this is a person with a reputation of very deep integrity who is admired across the political spectrum and has deep and granular experience in national security matters—both at DOJ and as a judge reviewing government action.
(looks like I've stopped numbering these tweets. Oh, well. I assume y'all can count on your own)
When you put all of that together, you get something close to a perfect combination of the traits we need right now at the head of the Justice Department. Consider what we need right now:
(1) Someone with the integrity actually to make decisions about how the Justice Department should think about the last four years in a non-political fashion.
(2) Someone whose reputation for integrity will actually make people BELIEVE that he or she is behaving with the integrity described in (1).
(3) Someone with deep experience with the Justice Department who is respected within it and has management experience in running it.
(4) Someone with deep experience with national security decision-making.
There are a lot of people who meet some of these criteria. And there are a few who plausibly meet all of them. There is nobody who more emphatically meets all of them than does Garland.
If Merrick has one deficiency, it is the relative staleness of his national security experience in the executive branch—which is pre-9/11 and predates the creation of the National Security Division. He would benefit from a strong deputy attorney general who would compensate...
...for this. My suggestion on that score would be, Lisa Monaco.

But make no mistake. There was a right answer to this question, and Joe Biden nailed it.

For rule of law restoration purposes, there is no appointment more significant than the choice of attorney general.
And there is no candidate more perfect for the role than Garland.

That's all I got--for now.

More from Politics

1/ Imagine that as soon as the referendum result the EU announced that it was looking forward to the end of free movement of UK citizens in the EU


2/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those retired Brits in the EU27 could go home

3/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those Brits in the EU could stop driving down wages, taking jobs and stop sending benefits back to the UK

4/ Imagine if the EU said it was looking to use UK citizens as “bargaining chips” to get a better trade deal

5/ Imagine if the EU told UK citizens in the EU27 that they could no longer rely on established legal rights and they would have to apply for a new status which they have to pay for for less rights
What does "patriots in control" mean?
What would that "look like" in reality?


So a massive adult film star in all his glory is included in an official FBI government filing


Hunter Biden's book is categorized as "Chinese


TIME admits to "conspiracy" to "not rig, rather


A "pillow guy" has military-grade intercepts detailing the IP addresses and device MAC IDs of EVERY incursion into every county in the
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/


First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/

Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/

Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/

Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.