Internet skeptical as Anna Paulina Luna plans to force a vote to arrest Merrick Garland

WASHINGTON, DC: Republican Anna Paulina Luna, who represents Florida, is planning to force a vote directing the House Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Luna argues that the Department of Justice undermined Congress by refusing to act on the contempt resolution passed by the GOP majority earlier this month. 

Anna Paulina Luna pushes 'inherent contempt' to arrest attorney General Merrick Garland

Now, Luna is trying to garner the support of the house against Garland, asserting that "the only option to ensure compliance with our subpoena is to use our constitutional authority of inherent contempt."

"In the next few days, I will call up my resolution holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in inherent contempt of Congress, and I look forward to each of you voting in favor of it," Luna stated in a letter to her colleagues, Fox News reports.

"Our ability to legislate effectively and fulfill our constitutional duties is at stake," she stressed, adding, "We must act now to protect the integrity and independence of the legislative branch."

Inherent contempt if passed by House will possibly see Merrick Garland getting detained 

Under inherent contempt, if passed, Garland could be tried before the House of Representatives and detained by the House Sergeant-at-Arms.

"This is a broad power that courts have recognized as necessary for Congress to fulfill its legislative functions," Luna wrote, according to the letter cited by the publication.

It explained under inherent contempt, the individual is brought before the bar of the House by the Sergeant at Arms, tried by the body, and can then be detained either in the Capitol or in DC.

She stressed that this approach "demonstrates the seriousness with which Congress views non-compliance and the potential consequences for those who refuse to cooperate," Luna added.

The DOJ and attorney general 'cannot be the ultimate deciders:' Anna Paulina Luna

The Republican-led House of Representatives voted 216 to 207 to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for defying a congressional subpoena on June 12 over audiotapes of President Biden’s interview with a special prosecutor Robert Hur. 

Luna’s resolution to hold Garland in inherent contempt will need to be deemed “privileged” to force a vote, it noted.

Yet the move is believed to be blocked by some Republicans, potentially preventing a House-wide vote.

The DOJ has not prosecuted Garland after the House held him in contempt of Congress, citing that he acted on Biden's executive privilege claims over the interview tapes.

"The Department of Justice and the attorney general cannot be the ultimate deciders of whether or not a congressional subpoena is enforced," Luna argued.

"If Congress allows this to happen, we risk being subordinated to the attorney general and being completely neutered in our ability to legislate," she added. 

Internet reactions to Anna Paulina Luna’s planned vote against Merrick Garland

Internet reactions to Luna's planned vote against Merrick Garland have been mixed with skepticism about the resolution's chances of success.

"More doing nothing knowing that this is gonna go nowhere," wrote one user on X. "Yeah but it'll never happen," added another.

Some users showed support for Luna's efforts. "Kudos to her for trying. I don't expect the House to have the spine to actually pass it though," wrote one.

"Garland is not above the law! Americans no longer trust the DOJ. DOUBLE STANDARD OF JUSTICE IS EVIDENT HERE," echoed another.

One anticipated Republican predicted defeat if the resolution is brought to the vote by writing, "Please bring this to a vote and watch Republicans get defeated again."

Notably, Congress has not invoked its inherent contempt power since 1934, when a Washington lawyer William MacCracken got a 10-day jail sentence for not complying with a Senate subpoena.

The case was heard in the Supreme Court, which upheld Congress' right to exercise its inherent contempt powers in its February 1935 decision in Jurney v MacCracken. 

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.