By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s tenure has been marked by highly controversial actions, drawing criticism from across the political spectrum. These include the DOJ’s attempts to prosecute Donald Trump while simultaneously shielding President Biden from similar accusations, the controversial raid on Mar-a-Lago, and the targeting of parents protesting school policies. Further fueling discontent, the DOJ has been accused of ignoring subpoenas, prosecuting political opponents more aggressively than those aligned with the administration, and interfering with investigations into the Biden family. The cumulative effect of these actions has severely damaged public trust in the DOJ and the FBI.
Read the original article here
Merrick Garland’s tenure as Attorney General is frequently cited as a period of inaction and missed opportunities, leading many to consider him the worst in US history. His perceived reluctance to aggressively pursue investigations and prosecute individuals, particularly high-profile figures, has fueled significant criticism.
Merrick Garland’s handling of investigations into former President Trump is a primary source of this negative assessment. Many believe his approach was overly cautious and allowed for significant delays, ultimately hindering the pursuit of justice and potentially undermining the rule of law. The perception of leniency, some argue, emboldened Trump and his allies, creating a sense of impunity that could have far-reaching consequences.
Merrick Garland’s perceived unwillingness to act decisively against powerful figures extends beyond the Trump investigations. Several cases, including the investigation into Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, have been cited as examples of a lack of forceful action. The delays and perceived lack of progress in such high-profile matters are viewed by many as evidence of a fundamental failure to uphold the principles of equal justice under the law.
Merrick Garland’s perceived inaction has generated widespread disillusionment among those who expected a more assertive approach. The hope for a restoration of normalcy and a strong defense of the rule of law, which many associated with his appointment, has been largely unmet in the eyes of his critics. This perceived failure to deliver on those expectations further exacerbates the negative perception surrounding his performance.
The criticisms extend beyond specific cases, touching upon Garland’s perceived overall approach to his role. Many see his actions as indecisive and weak-willed, failing to meet the demands of a position requiring decisive leadership and a commitment to pursuing justice aggressively, regardless of political pressures. The term “milquetoast” is frequently used to describe his style, highlighting a lack of assertiveness that many find unacceptable for the nation’s top legal official.
Even considering other Attorneys General with controversial pasts, such as Bill Barr, some argue that Garland’s legacy is particularly damaging due to his apparent inaction in the face of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing. The argument is made that Barr’s actions, while problematic, were at least decisive, while Garland’s inaction represents a more profound failure of leadership. The potential long-term consequences of this perceived inaction are seen as significantly more detrimental than the actions of previous Attorneys General.
The argument that Merrick Garland is the worst Attorney General in US history rests heavily on the perceived consequences of his inaction. Critics claim his reluctance to prosecute, his delays in investigations, and his overall lack of assertiveness have created a dangerous precedent, emboldening those who seek to undermine the rule of law. The cumulative effect of these perceived failures, some argue, is unprecedented and irrevocably damaging to the integrity of the justice system.
Comparisons to past Attorneys General often highlight the perceived shortcomings of Garland’s tenure. While acknowledging the problematic actions of figures like John Mitchell and Alberto Gonzales, critics argue that Garland’s lack of action in situations demanding decisive leadership represents a distinct and arguably more damaging form of failure. This perceived failure to act decisively when faced with clear evidence of wrongdoing is seen as a betrayal of the trust placed in him and a grave disservice to the American people.
Ultimately, the assertion that Merrick Garland is the worst Attorney General in US history is a subjective judgment. However, the accumulation of criticism focusing on his perceived inaction, his handling of high-profile investigations, and his seemingly cautious approach to enforcing the law creates a compelling case, one that will likely continue to be debated and analyzed for years to come. The long-term consequences of his tenure, both perceived and real, will significantly impact how his legacy is ultimately viewed within the historical context of the office.