The problem wasn’t Garland not passing the R-Senate. The R-Senate would have happily done that, because it would open up a position on the DC Court of Appeals that Mitch would fill with a Trump lackey.
Yellen is Treasury. She’d have gotten through and been confirmed for that anyway. You may mean Yates?
As far as this “take” goes, it’s simply based on the timing. Biden was clearly holding the AG announce for this election outcome. There are a couple of potential reasons for that. Either for Garland’s DC Seat (though he may likely just retire) or for someone like Yates who might go after corruption in the previous administration hammer and tongs.
Either is a plausible explanation. We’ll know when Biden announces which it was. :)
They still think they’re in charge of the party. It’d be adorable if it wasn’t fucking terrifying.
JoshL
1773
Sorry, of course I meant Yates. Still morning here.
I see what you’re saying. I guess it is more important to me who is AG than who takes the previous office of the person who is the next AG. Saying “oh, good, the Ds took the Senate, so now we can appoint this moderate who won’t do anything without worrying about not being able to replace him on the circuit court” doesn’t make much sense.
This could be true, but it is not at all what that passage I quoted says. It says bills get on the calendar when they are reported out by committee, which means it is controlled by the majority. And it says that bills on the calendar are the bills that can be the subject of normal motions to proceed, which I think means bills not on the calendar can’t be subject to those normal motions; which is why you saw Schumer and Bernie making motions without objection rather than motions for procedural votes.
I’m no expert, of course, but it doesn’t make sense to me that the Dems had the power to e.g. force a vote on the House covid relief bill since May, but simply chose not to bother. I can’t recall a single instance of the minority party ever forcing an actual vote on any bill McConnell didn’t want to advance, using a motion to proceed rathe than a without objection motion, but if they have done so, I will gladly read how they did it. Just point it out.
The tradeoff between someone like Garland and Yates is worth considering, maybe too.
Yates is likely to be the one to be more active and eager in pursuing previous administration corruption and bad actors. But that perception will be well-understood by everyone, including media, politicians, etc. Even voters. But she’d be the one most likely to uncover malfeasance.
Garland is considered more of an eminence gris I think. He’d be more reluctant to move on previous administration bad actors…but if he does do that, I think it carries more heft across the board. Like basically, “Oh shit, if Garland is pursuing investigations, there must be something really there.”
Biden has played the AG card, as he has most things the last several months, perfectly.
JoshL
1780
I don’t think history shows that Garland brings Rs to the table.
Never said that it would.
JoshL
1782
I guess I don’t understand what “carries more heft across the board” means then.
It’s a good move. Garland is also 68, so this allows the Dems to find a younger replacement for his seat.
We may see a wave of older Federal judges retire now that they know they won’t get replaced with total R cronies.
JoshL
1785
I guess we’re “looking forward not back” then.
Senators are still concerned with what their constituents think. And those concerned constituents still have their opinions somewhat shaped by media. They can still publicly go up against AG Garland hard…but they’re going to have to be watching their poll numbers because if he investigates, it’s likely to be portrayed differently.
Maybe, but I don’t have any read on Garland in that respect at all. I thought he was a bad pick if we didn’t control the Senate, because we wouldn’t be able to fill his seat. But with control of the Senate, it’s not a bad idea at all to open up that seat and replace him with a much younger judge.
