US Attorney General Merrick Garland defended his Justice Department (DOJ) in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 1 as Republicans tore into him over several issues. The thread that connected all the topics with which GOP Senators confronted the AG was, of course, the politicization of the DOJ. Garland utterly rejected this premise while being- for the most part - unwilling or unable to provide evidence to counter conservatives’ claims that the department appears to be targeting people on the right while giving left-wing activists who break the law a pass. In one or two instances, Attorney General Garland deflected blame by, essentially, throwing federal law enforcement officials under the bus; most notably, the FBI.
Merrick Garland Into the Storm
Garland is a somewhat reserved and measured character. Not nearly as polished a speaker as several of his most recent predecessors, he is also not given to theatrics or bluster. Thus, he appeared outmatched by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who is given to both and knows how to use them. That said, the Texas Republican had some valid points to make – specifically regarding protests that took place outside the private residences of Supreme Court justices last year following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. The majority opinion in Dobbs overturned Roe v. Wade, dismantling federal protections for abortion and returning the matter of abortion access to the states.
Cruz wasn’t the only Republican to tackle Garland on the Supreme Court protests, which, since they were staged directly outside the homes of judges, violated Title 18, Section 1507 of the US Code. The back and forth between Merrick Garland and the GOP committee members could be reduced to the following points and counter-points: Why were no protesters arrested even though they were breaking federal law? Because the United States Marshals deployed to protect the justices and their families had discretion about making arrests and chose not to. Why, then, did the DOJ – and this would presumably have fallen to the FBI – not make arrests later, using the copious quantities of video and social media posts to identify the protesters? That was a question of whether this would have been a justifiable use of federal resources.
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Despite his best attempts to explain discrepancies like this, Garland seems to not understand how it looks to the general public. Saying simply that US Marshals decided not to arrest anyone doesn’t really cut it.
Pro-Lifers in the Crosshairs
In 2022, pro-life activist Mark Houck was arrested by the FBI for allegedly assaulting an employee of a Pennsylvania abortion clinic the previous year. The length of time that elapsed between the incident and the arrest raises a number of questions, but that wasn’t the reason several GOP senators confronted Garland about it.
Contrary to news reports in the left-leaning media that painted Houck as the aggressor, he was, in fact, defending his 12-year-old son from physical intimidation and an allegedly vicious verbal assault by Bruce Love, who worked for the clinic. Houck allegedly pushed Love away from his child and later shoved him a second time. That was the extent of the physical confrontation.
In September of 2022, the FBI descended on Houck’s home with a force of more than 20 heavily-armed officers in tactical gear. According to Mr. Houck’s wife, she and her children had rifles aimed at them as he was arrested and taken away. Asked why such clearly excessive and unnecessary force was used, Merrick Garland pointed the finger at the local FBI office. It was they who made the decision, he said, about how to carry out Houck’s apprehension. The AG also claimed the FBI disputed the description of the arrest as an aggressive tactical-style operation. Still, photographs taken at the scene make the FBI’s denials seem weak, at best. The activist had already offered to turn himself in. It took a jury one hour to acquit Houck in January of 2023.
Houck’s story was used by Republicans to highlight the disparity between how the DOJ treats pro-life activists and how it deals with pro-abortion protesters. A great many of the former have been arrested while relatively few of the latter have been brought to justice despite the staggeringly large number of pregnancy centers and houses of worship that have been vandalized and fire-bombed by left-wing extremists.
Garland pointed out that the pro-lifers are protesting during the day, making them easy to identify while the pro-abortion radicals are carrying out their attacks at night, so they are not seen.
The March 1 hearing covered a lot of other ground, including Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) expressing concern that certain states might be using federal money to “hunt down” women who were seeking abortions. Garland put on his concerned face, but it was more than obvious that he had no idea what Hirono was talking about – because no evidence has been presented that any such thing is happening.
It’s never easy for congressional committees to question attorneys general, regardless of whether they were appointed by a Democrat or a Republican. They have too many ways of avoiding the questions, can’t talk about ongoing investigations, etc. To many conservatives, Merrick Garland is currently at the helm of what they allege is a politically weaponized Justice Department. Nothing Garland said in Wednesday’s hearing would have lessened that perception, and the current AG – assuming he wishes to restore the faith that a significant proportion of the country has lost in his department – has his work cut out.
