Obama nominates Judge Merrick Garland to Supreme Court
ASSOCIATED PRESS
A view of the Supreme Court in Washington.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Judge Merrick B. Garland is seen at the federal courthouse in Washington.
WASHINGTON » President Barack Obama nominated appeals court judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court today, challenging Republicans to drop their adamant refusal to even consider his choice in an election year.
Obama called Garland, a long-time jurist and former prosecutor, “one of America’s sharpest legal minds” and deserving of a full hearing and Senate confirmation vote. Republican leaders, however, have said the vacant high court seat should not be filled until a new president is elected, a stance Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell emphasized immediately after the White House announcement.
Garland, 63, is the chief judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a court whose influence over federal policy and national security matters has made it a proving ground for potential Supreme Court justices.
He would replace conservative, Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last month, leaving behind a bitter election-year fight over the future of the court.
Obama announced choice at a ceremony in the Rose Garden, with Democratic Senate leaders and allies looking on.
Garland, who had been passed over before, choked back tears, calling the nomination “the greatest honor of my life.” He described his grandparents’ flight from anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe and his modest upbringing.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with top news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
He said he viewed a judge’s job as a mandate to set aside personal preferences to “follow the law, not make it.”
Obama held up Garland as a diligent public servant, highlighting his work leading the investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing and prosecutions. He quoted past praise for Garland from Chief Justice John Roberts and Sen. Orrin Hatch. And he said Garland’s talent for bringing together “odd couples” made him a consensus candidate best poised to become an immediate force on the nation’s highest court.
The president urged the Republican-led Senate not to let the particularly fierce and partisan political climate quash the nomination of a “serious man.”
“This is precisely the time when we should play it straight,” Obama said.
Garland was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 1997 with backing from a majority in both parties, including seven current Republicans senators.
If confirmed, Garland would be expected to align with the more liberal members, but he is not viewed as down-the-line liberal. Particularly on criminal defense and national security cases, he’s earned a reputation as centrist, and one of the few Democratic-appointed judges Republicans might have fast-tracked to confirmation under other circumstances.
In the current climate, Garland remains a tough sell. Republicans control the Senate, which must confirm any nominee, and GOP leaders want to leave the choice to the next president, denying Obama a chance to alter the ideological balance of the court before he leaves office next January. Republicans contend that a confirmation fight in an election year would be too politicized.
Republicans have set up a task force that will orchestrate attack ads, petitions and media outreach. On the other side, Obama allies are to run a Democratic effort targeting states where Republicans might feel political heat for opposing hearings.
Obama’s choice risks deflating some of the energy among the Democratic base. Progressives and civil rights activists had pushed the president to name an African-American woman or to otherwise continue his efforts to expand the court’s diversity.
Garland — a white, male jurist with an Ivy League pedigree and career spent largely in the upper echelon of Washington’s legal elite — breaks no barriers. At 63 years old, he would be the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis Powell, who was 64 when he was confirmed in 1971.
Presidents tend to appoint young judges with the hope they will shape the court’s direction for as long as possible.
Those factors had, until now, made Garland something of a perpetual bridesmaid, repeatedly on Obama’s Supreme Court lists but never chosen.
But he is finding his moment at a time when Democrats are seeking to apply maximum pressure on Republicans. A key part of their strategy is casting Republicans as obstructionists ready to shoot down a nominee that many in their own ranks once considered a consensus candidate. In 2010, Hatch called Garland “terrific” and said he could be confirmed “virtually unanimously.”
A native of Chicago and graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Garland clerked for two appointees of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr. and Judge Henry J. Friendly, for whom Roberts also clerked.
In 1988, he gave up a partner’s office in a powerhouse law firm to cut his teeth in criminal cases. As an assistant U.S. attorney, he joined the team prosecuting a Reagan White House aide charged with illegal lobbying and did early work on the drug case against then-D.C. Mayor Marion Barry. He held a top-ranking post in the Justice Department when he was dispatched to Oklahoma City the day after the bombing at the federal courthouse to supervise the investigation. The case made his reputation. He oversaw the convictions of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and later supervised the investigation into Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.
President Bill Clinton first nominated him to the D.C. Circuit in 1995.
His prolonged confirmation process then may have prepared him for the one ahead. Garland waited 2½ years to win confirmation to the appeals court. Then, as now, one of the men blocking his path was Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, who argued he had no quarrel with Garland’s credentials but a beef with the notion of a Democratic president trying to fill a court Grassley felt had too many seats.
Grassley ultimately relented, although he was not one of the 32 Republicans who voted in favor of Garland’s confirmation. Nor was Sen. Mitch McConnell, the other major hurdle for Garland now. The Republicans who voted in favor of confirmation are Hatch, Sen. Dan Coats, Sen. Thad Cochran, Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Jim Inhofe, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Pat Roberts.
101 responses to “Obama nominates Judge Merrick Garland to Supreme Court”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Tough for the nominee, but partisan politics intensified during this administration when Obama care was crammed down the Republicans throat with insults from House majority leader who stated the Bill can be read after it is passed! That’s rubbing salt in the wounds! The senate majority leader also changed procedures when bills were submitted for consideration by implementing the two thirds majority rule to filibuster a bill when the Democratic controlled the body.
No one seems to question the qualifications of the nominee.
HawaiiCheeseBall, yes they have. I guess you are a Democrat and not on any Conservative News outlets. They challenge his qualifications and past decisions. No can do.
I think you are confusing the two, I agree there are some on both sides of the aisle who challenge and disagree with some of his past decisions. But the fact is no one is saying he lacks the experience or judicial temperament or understanding of the law so as to render him unqualified for the position.
HawaiiCheeseBall, there are a number of groups that has and will be challenging Garland. It’s similar to those who challenged Bork, Thomas, et al. Our system is falling apart and the Country has been splitting by ideology.
No he is just a lump of cheese.
Kuro, you seem to have a great deal of dexterity until the policy positions are not of your own liking. These facts remain: in every national poll, almost 2/3 of the general public want the Senate to go forward with hearings; there will be extreme consequences for the Senate, especially for Rs who are defending over 2 dozen seats; that it is incredulous that a jurist like Merrick who did have one vote of opposition in his previous federal bench position, cannot receive a hearing–I’m am not saying approval, but merely a hearing. The price will be dire for Rs in the fall, when they lose the Senate ( mostly every pollster is saying as much) and the outcome will be 3-4 D justices in the next administration. Payback and karma usually tandem bridge partners…
Boo, where are you gaining your information? Which polls are you following? If what you say is true, the U.S. Senate Republican leadership would be in panic mode. They would not stop Pres. Obama’s nominee from beginning the process, in fear that the U.S. Senate may turn Democrat, or the elected President will be Hillary Clinton. The Senate positions cut both ways.
You’re right, of course. At least as that pertains to people who understand the law and his rulings. Republican senators now serving in the Senate have recommended him for SCOTUS.
RINOs
Let’s have President Trump make the choice. Poor O, he will never have a positive legacy to brag about..only negative.
Keep telling yourself that, Keonigohan, maybe you’ll eventually be able to believe it.
Obama care was hardly crammed down the republican throat when it was a republican invention. Thanks Richard Nixon. It would be nice if someday republicans would actually propose something to fix the nation’s problem with health care. But the party of No cannot. All they can do is to just say No and pretend everything is ok.
Party of No = No Mo Sense
No worries…President Trump will fix O’s blunders.
LIke what?
Nixon wrote the Affordable Care Act? Who knew?
Don’t feed the troll…
In 1971, President Nixon proposed a heath care reform act that mirrors the ACA in many ways. That includes the private health insurance mandate and broadly expanded Medicaid. President Ford continued the effort after President Nixon left office. The economy then went sour and President Ford withdrew the proposal and threatened to veto it if the Congress sent it to him. Governor Romney used the original Nixon initiative as the basis of his Massachusetts health care plan. President Obama used the Romney plan as a template for the ACA.
The devil is always in the details Klastri. There is a reason it’s not called Nixon care, because it’s not. Just another liberal canard that sweet Bootsie posts from time to time.
lee1957 – Except that Boots was largely correct and you were not. It’s pretty obvious that you didn’t know that President Nixon was the original proponent of the law that exists today. It was always a Republican plan. You can make up anything you want at this point.
There is a big difference between an idea, a plan, and 1000 pages of legislation. Is this where you start hurling personal insults?
Wasn’t this saying by Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House and now Minority Leader AND I BET SHE STLL HASN’T READ IT AND NEVER WILL. Bills are written and read by staff not the Members themselves. Most Members never read bills but receive summaries/position papers and talking points from their staff.
I belief the Senate Majority Leader — a Democrat — got rid of the 2/3rds rule, so the GOP couldn’t block bills. Now they want the Republicans to go back to the previous rule.
That’s what you believe, huh? Well, you’re wrong, so your unbroken string of writing things without research stands! The change in the cloture rule does not affect bills. Go Trump!
I’m pleasantly surprised judge Merrick Garland isn’t a black, woman or muslim.
I keep thinking with each comment you make that you have finally scraped to the very bottom of the fetid barrel that is your mind. But you surprise me every day with something even more ignorant and base. Go Trump!
It’s a typical republican retort.
I understand what you are saying, and it is not ignorant and is well grounded.
Mahalo BdPapa !
I think it’s the “time of the month” for klastri.
Sanitary napkins galore.
It’s always the time of the month for klastri (aka Kurt on Kauai). I’ve never seen a person so angry.
Keonigohan – There you go again with Kurt. Is he an ex-boyfriend or something? Why are you so fixated on him? It’s not me.
One thing about you … always classy! Go Trump!
So klastri (aka Kurt on Kauai) is one of those bent-wrist “boys”, huh ?
What’s she/he doing reading an Oahu paper?
Marauders_1959 – I’m going to take a wild guess that you were not on the Debate Team while you were attending law school. Am I right? And “bent wrist boy?” You certainly are a Trump voter! Go Trump!
Use any kind of adhesive you can find at Eagle… Words like “pleasantly” will not stick to you.
Just saw on TV that the Senate will adhere to the “Biden Rule”. The rule that Senator Joe Biden brought forward in blocking W’s nomination saying it was up to the next president to make the nomination and for the Senate not to vote until that occurred since it was a waste of time. Don’t you just love it when a politician makes a statement and years later it come back to bite him??
I’m sorry that you still can’t do the slightest research before commenting – no big surprise there I suppose. Despite what Mr. Biden (and others) have said, the Senate did move forward on hearings for the candidate and confirmed the nominee. What Mr. McConnell is doing is unprecedented.
Had Barry selected Pam Karlan, then McConnell would indeed stay cemented in his position. And rightfully so. This nominee is is quite reasonable, and clearly reflects Obama’s desire to meet halfway. And, as Orrin Hatch recently mentioned, McConnell’s rhetoric to date is merely “the chickens coming home to roost”, a reference to Biden and the democrats having threatened to refuse considering Bush’s efforts to place a candidate. It’s only been less than a day since this nomination was made, so why don’t we wait and see what happens.
Not so moderate at all as this nominee is Obama’s choice to further his agenda which has always been the erosion of gun rights.
d_bullfighter – You keep writing about the erosion of gun rights. You mean that now seven years into his term, the President is finally plotting to do something about that? Because he hasn’t done anything – nothing at all – that affects the Second Amendment in his first seven years. This despite a continuous stream of mass shootings and gun murders. Nothing.
bullfighter, thank you for pointing me in that direction. Surface research led me to rate Garland a moderate, yet it would seem his 2nd amendment attitude demands scrutiny. If indeed Barry is working back door at gun confiscation, this move might be compared to “check” in a chess match.
klas, without the Court’s backing, there isn’t much Barry can do. Don’t imply his inaction was his choosing, he’s made his position crystal clear.
@ klastri On numerous occasions the President has publically declared his desire that Congress enact stricter gun laws. That is a fact. Just because his agenda has not been acted upon by Congress does not negate his intention and stated agenda. One way to get around Congress is to nominate someone to the Supreme Court who may likely be sympathetic to his agenda. If anything, Obama is persistent. Your claim that nothing has happened does not prevent Obama from trying, does it?
If he so chooses, the President has the right to nominate someone. If they so choose, the Senate has the right to give or withhold their advice and consent. That’s the way the cookie crumbles, like it or not.
The bitter debate began back in Reagan’s presidency when his nominee Bork was questioned relentlessly by the Democracts resulting in a no confidence vote. From that inception the bitter divide began and continues to this date.
Serious, and at the time Senator Biden was the “Chairman” of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.
He still held hearings and confirmed the nominee. Don’t you get that simple fact?
Klastri, then why did he propose his rule as Chairman of the United States Judiciary Committee? Too late.
Yet he did vote to filibuster Judge Alito’s nomination, along with one BHO.
kuroiwaj – It seems to me that Associate Justice Alito is a sitting member of SCOTUS, so he did receive hearings and a vote in the Senate. Your argument keeps falling apart, but at least you keep trying.
Klastri, I was a Horticulture major and later in business and management. I’m willing to bet that becoming a lawyer taught you to be truthful and persistent to become successful. So, congratulations in being persistent.
There is only one script Klastri and both sides share it. Time to belly up to the bar.
lee1957 – Except that you’re wrong. The Senate has never refused to meet with or consider a SCOTUS nominee. Not ever. Lying may convince some people here who revel in their ignorance, but others have actually studied history and know the truth.
You are correct. However 30 plus Senators voted to filibuster. The fact that they were unsuccessful does not change the fact that they were in favor of not voting on the nominee. Your serve.
President Trump will put all this nonsense to rest.
The great news is that if he’s the nominee, Mr. Trump will lose in a historic landslide to Mrs. Clinton, and will probably take the Republican control of the Senate with him. Go Trump!
Dream on. Not a chance. Trump has the goods on her and her Willy.
sarge22 – Of course, and I suppose he’s keeping that all secret now for some reason. Like his secret plan that will definitely defeat ISIS. Mr. Trump won’t discuss that plan despite the ongoing murders being committed by that group, because he wants the credit for it after he becomes President. What’s a few murders between friends? And imbeciles actually believe things he says. Go Trump!
You should probably know by now that you don’t divulge your plans to the enemy. Rather a smart move by the future president. Love Trump’s new ad with the barking dog. TRUMP 2016 “What’s a few murders between friends?” You might ask that question to Hillary.
sarge22 – Well, now I just feel sorry for you. You think that it’s OK for Trump to keep something a secret that could save lives now and stop ISIS (as he claims) to wait another nine months? This is the level of intellectual horsepower of Trump’s supporters. It’s the most pathetic and unsettling thing I can recall as an adult. Thankfully, Mr. Trump will lose in a huge landslide, but his sad and slow supporters will remain. Scary.
Sorry to hear that you have learned nothing.I’m waiting for you to ask Hillary that question for me. “What’s a few murders between friends” Trump at 53% in the polls and Hillary barking. Great show. You should be very afraid.
Judges should be more centrist instead of ultra left or right. Nominating a supreme court judge is probably the most important thing that a president can do, since this court has shaped this country more than anything else. If the GOP wants to reject him, then they need to have a hearing and later vote up or down. If they don’t do anything by the fall, then the President can appoint an emergency justice to fill the seat when congress is in recess, so that probably would anger them even more. If they let this go on for too long, then what’s to stop them from indefinitely not filling that position even if a Democrat is elected into the White House next year? If congress doesn’t want to do their jobs, then they need to find another line of work. That’s probably the real reason why the public is angry enough to even consider a facist outsider candidate such as Trump.
Krusha, exactly. Agree with your post. Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to crush State law opposing Same-Sex Marriage, and the language on Same-Sex Marriage is not even written in the U.S. Constitution. Same for a number of National issues, one being abortion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”.
The Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state and local governments. However, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Just “do what is right”.
Too simple, I agree!
This guy appears eminently qualified and should probably be confirmed. Unfortunately, for him, he’ll probably be caught in the political crossfire. What I found offensive, and probably stupid, during the announcement ceremony, was the president giving another one of his lectures. First of all he’s the very one who would block a republican nomination if he were still a senator. Next, the great divider’s rant against the republicans will only cause them to dig in further. This president seems to have no skills in bringing people together for the common good.
Sad to say Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is suffering the effects of advanced aging, senility, dementia, alzheimers and should immediately retire. He is nothing but an obstructionist, no longer capable of doing his job, thinking rationally. Not that he ever was.
As a “King of Pork” and always having it his way or the highway, Mitchy is the poster child for why we need term limits. Senile old men and women are there way too long, begin to falsely think they are “Visionary” when in reality it is their mental failure.
Exactly why the US Congress and Senate are known around the world as the most backwards, obtuse, money wasting nest of utterly incompetent bureaucrats ever. 8 year term limits and they are gone.
Is it me or what?? Obama should have nominated this guy before Justice Kagan?? Judge Merrick seems Wayyyy more qualified ..You would think huh? So was Justice Kagan nomination gender based??
Ultimately all of this is for NOTHING!The Republicans are NOT going to bite,until the next president is elected .Here’s where “Common sense comes in__How many of Obama nominations has thus far already dropped out?Because of the stalemate between the Republicans and The President? This is a good indicator for Judge Merrick!
So why put Judge Merrick to all this Embarrassment?? He must know he’s not going to Fly so why….even try.IMUA
Embarrassment? A nomination to SCOTUS would be the highlight of any judge’s career. How do you come up with these remarkable thoughts? Chief Judge Garland has a lifetime appointment to the bench. If the Senate fails to carry out their constitutional duty, Mr. Garland simply resumes his duty on the Circuit. With regard to your ridiculous comment about Associate Justice Kagan, she was Dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General of the United States. You think that appointment was because she was a woman? Do you ever know what you’re talking about?
Before Judge Merrick Garland, Explain the previous Obama/SCOTUS nomination? Why they “Dropped out?? With Kagan,she was never a Judge! Please further your research before opining…nice try though
Further my research … of course you would write that. I’ve been a lawyer for more than 30 years, so I’ve done plenty of research. Do you understand what the position of Solicitor General is? The ignorance here is really shocking and discouraging. “I love the poorly educated!” Go Trump!
I have been breathing air for 58 years.
Obama got elected due to the poorly educated. All levels of education are voting for Mr Trump. It’s a whole new world and you aren’t in it. The establishment doesn’t want him and would rather have a liar or a socialist. Unbelievable.
I believe Kagan was confirmed in 2010 when the democrats controlled the senate. I’m guessing she leans more to the left than Merrick and would absolutely have no chance if she were nominated today. While Obama has few leadership skills he is a skilled politician and he knows that nominating a more moderate judge is the only realistic option he has.
good choice, Obama…….congratulation Judge Garland
Once again, The Israeli Lobby wins. Bill Clinton appointed, Hilary blessed and condoned, and Barry fulfilled his duty–for The Chicago Foundations, Wall Street, and The Military Industrial Complex… Oy Vey Maria… Now we have all the bases covered.
The warning signs were there all along: Obama and his connection to the loud churches in Chicago needed to tell us that something was awry.
Loud churches ….. right.
Excellent choice. obstructionist Republicans will play politics on this normination. Let’s fire them for the holdup.
Republicans must stand on principle. Senate Republicans said there would be no hearing on a Supreme Court nominee during the final year of the president’s term, an election year, and should stick to it
Can we withhold their pay for them not doing their job?
too bad democrats. Obama’s last two female nominations lean so far left that it is now all about ideology. instead of following the constitution, these left leaning judges are ruling according to what they FEEL the law should be. if Obama wants a judge so bad, why doesn’t he pick a constitutionalist, someone who follows the constitution like Alito? he won’t do it because no matter what you liberals here say, it is all about ideology and you know it.
After Obama leaves office, Hillary will nominate Obama for the Supreme Court.
Even better, I nominate Ukuleleblue for the Supreme Court.
However that would have people complaining that I favor TheTrain. So let’s have ukuleleblue and Kalaheo1 juke it out in a three round boxing match in the ring, and the winner will be my nomination.
How about describing in detail what the law or Constitution flaws were in any decision made by either of the Associate Justices you wrote about? Any case will do, and either of the two Associate Justices will do. Just pick one and try to make some sense. Good luck with that.
“Obama announced choice at a ceremony in the Rose Garden, with Democratic Senate leaders and allies looking on.” Forgot the word “the” between announced and choice. See even the AP makes typos. Don’t worry Barry, Hillie will win and Hillie will renominate Judge Garland. Also was allie looking on or was that allies?
Dissatisfaction with Obama has come to light as control of congress went to Republicans. Romney nearly beat Obama in 2012. If Obama faced someone like Eisenhower, Obama would have been blasted out of office.
If you claim that winning by 5 million votes is nearly losing, then maybe you need some help with arithmetic.
Not another liberal. No thank you, Obama.
Poor guy. He’s a sacrificial lamb put out by Obama to test the water, knowing that the GOP will never OK any of his nominations.
Trump won big yesterday and Obama is jealous and wants to get back in the news. President Trump will appoint the next judge.
Good luck with that. Roland Freisler hasn’t been with us for lo, these many years.
Poor guy? He is the Chief Judge of the DC Circuit and will remain in a lifetime appointment if the Senate fails their duty. You think he’s a sacrificial lamb? How, exactly, did you come up with that analysis?
Hatch and Grassley both had no problem with Garland before they decided on this petty obstructionism.
When Garland was elevated to the DC Appeals Court, Grassley had nothing but good things to say about him. Grassley’s objection at the time had only to do with the number of judges on that court, nothing related to Garland personally or professionally at all.
Hatch also declared that Garland met his approval without reservation. This was when Obama was considering him as a Supreme Court nominee. Hatch predicted that if he was nominated, he’d be approved by the Senate without problems.
Now both have flipflopped and refuse even to consider him. They’d better tote their bedrolls down to the Senate tonight and stage another fake “staying-in-session” charade. If the Senate takes its planned recess, look for a recess appointment. Our President’s rope-a-doped the GOP again!
Now Trump is predicting, and obviously inciting, riots if he isn’t nominated – even if he hasn’t got enough delegate votes to win on the first ballot. That’s just the kind of cool, thoughtful leader we need! Go Trump!
Seems like the only thing Trump brings out is the worst in people instead of the best. Is that what you want leading this country and the free world? When we see leaders like this in the world, we keep saying “that won’t happen in America”, yet it seems like this is exactly what the rabble want for America and willing to sell their souls to Trump in order to make that happen.
Trump has sarge in his corner, for whatever misguided reason.
Therefore, may the candidate able to muster the most rabble win! The rest of us will endure, and await a better day.