Scheduling Spat on Garland AG Nomination

Sarah Lynch at U.S. News and World Report reports on a spat between the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat and Republican over scheduling the confirmation hearing for AG-Nominee Merrick Garland. Incoming Chairman Dick Durbin wants the hearing February 8 for one day, but outgoing Chairman Lindsay Graham says one day is not enough.

Given the importance of the position, I am inclined to agree with Sen. Graham that two days are needed. In the Cabinet, DOJ is up there with State, Defense, and Treasury in its level of importance, and care in selection is needed.

I expect that hearings would confirm my initial impression, that Judge Garland is the best pick we could hope for in this administration. That view finds backhanded support in this January 7 opinion piece by Scott Lemieux at NBC, bemoaning Judge Garland’s past support of “tough of crime” policies. God forbid that we should have an attorney general who supported correct policies that had a major role in bringing down the horrific crime rates of the 1980s and early 1990s.

Lemieux says, optimistically, “it’s possible that Garland has reconsidered some of his positions” now that “Democratic elites have generally moved to the left on civil liberties.” I am optimistic that he has not changed positions that were correct then and remain correct today merely because the intellectual fashion among “Democratic elites” has changed. But that is why we have hearings, to ask questions like that.