This video, from Garland’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, tells you everything you need to know, but I have a bit to add…
Observations:
1. Garland is defensive. He should be. He’s been caught in a conflict of interest that was obvious and illegal.
2. The conservative news media has been talking about this since shortly after his dissent-chilling memo appeared. The mainstream media barely mentioned it, which is nauseating. This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, a partisan issue. The Attorney General stumbled into, or ignored, or didn’t recognize, or was talked into defying a serious conflict of interest that a second-year law student should be able to catch.
3. Maybe Garland just isn’t as smart as everyone (including me) thought he was.
4. His denials and protestations were weak and unconvincing. The parent protests (or as his memo calls them, “harassment”) are primarily being triggered by the progressive, Black Lives Matter-fueled effort to institute critical race theory-style lessons in the public schools. The memo is vague, but it is also vaguely threatening, and is accurately described as an attempt to make parents reluctant, hesitant, or afraid to vigorously object to the “1619 Project” and its CRT channeling ilk. The less push-back such curricula receive, the more likely schools are to adopt them. The more schools that adopt them, the more potential business for Garland’s son-in-law. This isn’t even a close call.
5. As a judge, Garland wouldn’t dare rule on a case with such an obvious connection to the benefit of a family member. Why he would think signing the speech-chilling letter he did to take the heat off anti-racism (that means anti-white) programs in the public schools while his son-in-law markets such programs wouldn’t be seen as equally inappropriate is a mystery.
6. As a federal employee and a member of the executive branch, just like a judge, Garland is forbidden from engaging in conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety. Rep. Mike Johnson had him cold: Garland was unethical, and flagrantly so. He has no excuse.
Ethics Alarms 
Wow.
He had the only excuse that matters: it pays to be the king.
Legal ethics are supposed to prevent it paying to be king though. We were told this guy was great and excellent and qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, and he can’t see the conflict of interest or at least the appearance of impropriety here? it doesn’t require having an opinion about CRT at all to see the issue.
The media did it’s job on calling out Biden for Afghanistan, and look what happened to his approval rating when people saw how incompetent he actually is. If the media would actually cover conflicts of interests like this and Biden’s inability to answer questions well, his approval rating would plummet. There’s plenty of issues the media could actually highlight that are objectively troubling. We also still don’t know what kind of health Biden is in. He doesn’t act like a person who is well.
Honorable mention to the loathsome slug occupying the chair of this hearing.
Said slug having earned a few entries in the Urban Dictionary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nadler
Garland’s unwillingness to answer whether he was willing to submit to a third party ethics evaluation speaks volumes about his character.
There is a kind of intelligence that makes one appear intelligent but is lacking in wisdom and actual substance (call it sophistry or cleverism?). It should’ve been a giveaway that he was nominated by a party that has turned fundamentally dishonest. Both parties have corrupt people that lie with abandon, but the entire Democratic Party narrative now requires believing multiple huge lies, such as that police are killing black men in the streets, that COVID is equally dangerous for every group, and that lockdowns were the only way to combat the virus. This is just the surface though.
I’ve listened to the way people on the far left reason for awhile, and there is a structure to it that sounds initially plausible if you aren’t well versed in politics. It can sound convincing and persuasive. The way they frame issues, the words they use, and what they choose to emphasize can be compelling for people who don’t really know the issues. And, I always distinguish between liberals and progressives. But something is seriously off in this country. I look at Garland, Biden, and Harris, and I just want to laugh and cry at the same time.
He’s been a judge so long I’m not sure he can answer a question.
As Jack pointed out, conflicts of interest are a huge deal in the law. Lawyers are supposed to be obsessive about avoiding them, even ones you may not remember you’ve even had because of past representation. His conflict of interest is obvious to him. He isn’t ignorant about it or making a mistake because he’s been a judge. He knows exactly what he’s doing, and that’s why it’s troubling, to say the least.
5. As a judge, Garland wouldn’t dare rule on a case with such an obvious connection to the benefit of a family member. Why he would think signing the speech-chilling letter he did to take the heat off anti-racism (that means anti-white) programs in the public schools while his son-in-law markets such programs wouldn’t be seen as equally inappropriate is a mystery.
Well, as I see it, there are two possibilities: Either Garland doesn’t understand how this represents a conflict of interest, or he doesn’t care.
Either one is unethical. It is a failure of professionalism and duty on the one hand, and an abuse of position on the other.
I fear a third may be the case: he understands, he cares, but he didn’t have the guts to resist White House pressure to send out the letter.
Great point. I think that’s the high probability.
Not that a certain White House resident has worried overmuch about conflicts of interest involving his own close relatives.
“As a judge, Garland wouldn’t dare rule on a case with such an obvious connection to the benefit of a family member.”
You sure about that? Ignoring such conflicts appears to be disturbingly common among federal judges:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal-judges-broke-the-law-by-hearing-cases-where-they-had-a-financial-interest-11632834421