On the whole, the Biden administration appears to have two goals: first, to erase every trace of the Trump administration from existence, and second, to recycle old members of the Obama administration in a vague attempt to resurrect the years 2008-2016.
Since in the minds of America’s elite class, 2016 is the year where everything went wrong, these two goals are really one and the same.
By putting a bunch of old Obama retreads into power, they’re trying to return the country to a situation where the establishment safely dominated everything and where few, if any, yet dared to seriously question its rule.
In light of that, some people may remember Merrick Garland, the U.S. District Court judge whom Obama nominated to the Supreme Court during his final lame-duck year following the death of Antonin Scalia but whom the Republican-controlled Senate of that time refused to even consider.
As a result, the public never got to see much of Garland. It never got to see how he comported himself, how he spoke, how his mind worked, and what he would bring to the Supreme Court—or any official position—should he ascend to it.
But now, that has changed. Biden has nominated Garland to be his attorney general. During his Senate confirmation hearing for that position earlier this week, people finally got to see what kind of man Garland is.
To put it mildly, he is almost hilariously unimpressive and incompetent. Thank God he won’t be getting anywhere near the Supreme Court.
Garland’s Pitiful Performance
Speaking before the Senate at a confirmation hearing is an opportunity for a candidate for a cabinet position to not only justify himself before the Senate but before the public at large. With a good performance, he can prove that he belongs in the position.
Garland’s performance was astonishingly bad. Not only was he “ummming” all over the place and scarcely speaking in coherent sentences, but he often refused to answer extremely straightforward questions. He would also make horrendous excuses for the behavior of his own political faction.
When asked by Senator Josh Hawley whether he would consider Antifa’s attacks on U.S. courthouses and other federal buildings to be instances of domestic terrorism—since Garland had said that he regarded the Capitol riot as an instance of domestic terrorism—he replied that an attack on a courthouse, while it was in operation, would be a case of domestic terrorism, but an attack on it while no one was present in the building, as the Antifa attacks were, would not be.
That really was his answer.
That speaks for itself.