BREAKING: Obama to Nominate Merrick Garland for Supreme Court, AP Reports
Source: Associated Press
Obama Said to Choose Garland to Replace Scalia on Supreme Court
Greg Stohr
Mike Dorning
Steven T. Dennis
March 16, 2016 10:05 AM EDT Updated on March 16, 2016 10:30 AM EDT
President Barack Obama plans to nominate Merrick Garland, chief judge of the federal appeals court in Washington and one of the most respected jurists in the country, to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat opened by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, according to a White House official and other people familiar with the matter.
Republicans have vowed to obstruct any Obama nominee for Scalias seat. The president plans to announce the nomination at 11 a.m. Washington time in the White House Rose Garden. The people who identified Garland requested anonymity ahead of the presidents announcement.
In a statement earlier Wednesday, Obama said his nominee will be "eminently qualified" to join the nations highest court, has an "unquestionable mastery of law" and "unimpeachable credentials." He asked for a fair hearing and up-or-down vote in the Senate.
"That is what the Constitution dictates, and thats what the American people expect and deserve," the president said.
Garland will be an ideologically moderate nominee who in other contexts would have broad bipartisan appeal. When Obama considered Garland for a high court vacancy in 2010, Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, called the judge "terrific" and said he could be confirmed to the Supreme Court "virtually unanimously."
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-03-16/obama-to-nominate-merrick-garland-for-supreme-court-ap-reports-iluwzj0o
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Garland was confirmed 76-23. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland )
houston16revival
(953 posts)slightly older than the rest of the floated names
so it's now or never for him
Obama a pragmatist
really shines the light on Senate Obstructionista
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)To associate Justice to the DC court of appeals.
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)There isn't a vacancy unless/until this nomination goes through. I doubt that he'll resign the seat first - knowing that he's almost certainly a sacrificial lamb for the Republican Senate to either ignore or turn down.
former9thward
(31,963 posts)The judge with the most seniority is the Chief Judge.
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)Rosco T.
(6,496 posts)Ie Roberts
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Chief Justices of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President; in lower federal courts, it's automatically the judge with the most seniority on that bench...even if that judge was appointed by a President of the other party and/or the current President doesn't want them to be. It's entirely procedural in the lower federal courts, unlike SCOTUS.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)He had been nominated by Bush as associate Supreme Court Justice replacing O'Connor who had said she wanted to retire. When Rehnquist, who was Supreme Court Justice died, Bush changed to nominating him as the Chief Justice.
It is not seniority, but the President can not take the position away once it is given. Roberst will likely be Chief Justice for a long long time as he was pretty young when he joined the SC as its chief justice.
former9thward
(31,963 posts)The poster I was replying to was talking about the Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals is determined by seniority. The President is not involved. The President nominates a Chief Justice of the SC only when a Chief Justice leaves the scene.
Response to former9thward (Reply #21)
Reter This message was self-deleted by its author.
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)The Republicans are FUCKED on this nomination.
apnu
(8,750 posts)Garland seems bland and centrist, he's the safest of safe picks. How fucked do you think the Republicans are with this pick?
houston16revival
(953 posts)If you've replaced Scalia with a moderate like Judge Garland
and skewered Senate Republicans with a centrist pick
they ignore at their own political peril
It's a pragmatic deal that you got mileage from
It could go either way ... if the GOP Senate takes up the pick
and approves him, their standing rises for November
He could also be and must realize in this environment he could be a
sacrificial lamb
His age says he would not be nominated by subsequent presidents
and it would be wrong to sacrifice younger brilliant legal scholars on this opening
Plus he's from Chicago ... Obama has been a bit of a home town boy
If we win the election and take back the Senate the new POTUS will nominate a younger and more progressive candidate. Then they would have wished they went for the bland centrist.
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)These seats are all in play now.
Chuck Grassley
John McCain
Mark Kirk
Indiana Open Seat
Kelly Ayotte
Rob Portman
Patrick Toomey
Ron Johnson
I also think that this is particularly harmful to John Boozman in Arkansas.
Edited to add: Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma is going to have a very hard time explaining to the people of his state that he thought the judge who tried the Oklahoma city bomber Timothy McVeigh is unqualified. Senator Lankford does not currently have a challenger, does he get one now?
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Their Supreme Court debacle was a ploy to get Obama to nominate the most bland centrist possible, they just may have accomplished their goal, now on the the next non-crisis they will generate to try to control the psyche of American politics and manipulate Obama and all Dem officeholders, and especially the people they still haven't stopped from voting. Expect a lot more fear and loathing, and hate. It is going to require a ton of that shit to turn the herd by Nov. They have known all along that this year they lose the Senate otherwise.
You are assuming their talking point is true = they can hold the Senate
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)politically (enabling the Democrats to retake the Senate). Otherwise I would think that if a Democrat is elected President
in 2016 a more liberal nominee could make it though confirmation.
cstanleytech
(26,276 posts)they would refuse to hear any nomination that Obama would make and he nominated a Jewish moderate one so now they either eat crow and give the guy a fair hearing or they go forward with their promise to prevent the president from exercising his constitutionally obligation and be tar and feathered as antisemite and obstructionists to boot.
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)Thus, even if they decline to confirm, they have already caved in somewhat. Follow with potentially another 'sacrificial' pick and then the third nomination might be somebody actually liberal by which time the Senate will both have completely quashed any pretense of not holding hearings AND be at severe risk for appearing obstructionist if they oppose three nominations. And as others have said, dangling out there the fact that you can take a moderate now or risk a Clinton/Sanders appointment with a Democratic Senate next year....
Botany
(70,483 posts)Early life, education and legal training[edit]
Garland was born in Chicago, Illinois. His mother, Shirley (née Horwitz), was a director of volunteer services, and his father, Cyril Garland, headed Garland Advertising in Chicago.[2][3] His father comes from a Protestant family, while Merrick was raised in his mother's religion, Judiasm. Garland grew up in Lincolnwood, Illinois, graduated eighth grade from Lincoln Hall Middle School, and graduated high-school from Niles West High School in Skokie, Illinois, in 1970. He was named one of 119 members of the Presidential Scholars Program by the Commission on Presidential Scholars, and he came with that group to the White House on June 4, 1970 to listen to a special address in the East Room of the White House to the group by President Richard Nixon. Garland also was named a National Merit Scholar.[4][5]
Garland graduated valedictorian from Harvard College with an A.B. summa cum laude in social studies in 1974 and then graduated from Harvard Law School with a J.D. magna cum laude in 1977.[6] During law school, Garland was a member of the Harvard Law Review and served as articles editor from 1976 to 1977. Following graduation, he clerked for Judge Henry Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1977 to 1978, and then clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. from 1978 to 1979.
Professional career[edit]
Garland was Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States from 1979 to 1981. He then joined the law firm of Arnold & Porter, where he was a partner from 1985 to 1989 and from 1992 to 1993.[7] He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1989 to 1992, and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1993 to 1994. From 1994 until his appointment as U.S. Circuit Judge, Judge Garland served as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, where his responsibilities included the supervision of the Oklahoma City bombing and UNABOM prosecutions. One of Garland's mentors, according to a July 6, 1995 Los Angeles Times article, was then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick.
Garland has taught antitrust law at Harvard Law School and has served as co-chair of the administrative law section of the District of Columbia Bar. On March 16, 2016 Garland was nominated by President Barack Obama to fill Justice Antonin Scalia's vacant seat in the Supreme Court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland
*****
Article Two of the United States Constitution requires the President of the United States to nominate Supreme Court Justices.
"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court..."
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Sure can't say he isn't qualified.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... and mate.
Well played, Mr. President.
Great move...expose these obstructionist, who can't seem to do their job. Then let's take back the Senate, so we can get to work.
potone
(1,701 posts)This strikes me as a brilliant move. It seems that there is nothing to object to in his record, and refusing to hold hearings on him will hurt the Republicans. It also is brave of him to be willing to be nominated under these conditions. I like the guy already! (I hope I won't regret saying that.)
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)so we cave into them, and they approve him and look reasonable after all. And everyone forgets how obstructive the GOP was come November.
Who won again?
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... that's not how the Repukes operate.
Job one is to obstruct anything and everything that Obama proposes.
No way they allow a vote on, much less approve an Obama nominee.
The base would have a collective aneurysm.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)We replaced an extreme ideological conservative Scalia with a Justice that is, at-worst, another Kennedy deciding cases on their merits rather than ideology grounds. Even if Garland ends up being not as liberal as we would have liked, we've substantially moved SCOTUS back towards the center.
More than that, Garland is considered one of the foremost administrative law jurists alive today and a staunch defender of legal precedent and proper procedure...it's likely that he will have a lot of sway with Roberts who constantly makes comments about wanting to make the court more legalistic and less partisan.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Foolish Dems. We get a republican-Lite guy. One who supported mass incarceration.
beac
(9,992 posts)Old'ish, white, male moderate with credentials that SHOULD make him a shoe-in. However, the Republicans in the Senate have promised their base to block any Obama appointee.
I think there's a chance he's the sacrificial lamb and the person Obama will appoint after him is the "real" appointee.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Could be a tactical pick. The odds against any appointee might be unfairly stacked, so why "use up"* a top nominee who can get appointed later? As he's older than than some others on the list, if he does get appointed now then the timing is pretty good. The younger prospects can get appointed down the road.
*If the Republicans have united in blocking anyone then they might feel compelled to go after whoever President Obama nominates. Having done that, they might be reluctant to later on approve the candidate if our next President put him up as a nominee again.
houston16revival
(953 posts)they might well see more liberal and younger picks in 2017
unless they keep the Senate and win the White House
Who would Trump nominate?
Judge Judy? Howard Stern?
As someone posted weeks ago, and I've reiterated before
I would not want to play chess or poker with Obama
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Her credentials to a nomination are legitimate...she's an outstanding jurist and well-respected. She's also unfortunately extremely conservative...and fortunately she'd also be 79 by the time she was confirmed so her seat would be a short-held one.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,371 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)Because of what it will do to the GOP.
Yeah...that's The ticket.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Milquetoast is now the new goal.
cstanleytech
(26,276 posts)who was on the far end of right wing nuttery as you could get and not leave the wing.
Indeed.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... by nominating a moderate, he's allowing the Repukes to be hoisted on their own petard.
But, far better to nominate a progressive so that the Repukes can wallow in their righteous indignation.
And, who needs the Senate anyway?
Amirite???
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Lol. People never learn. Corporations win again.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The DINOS live in some sort of impenetrable black hole of denial where every lurch to the right is announced as this century's NEW Deal and Great Society all rolled into one.
How in the world does getting a conservative nominated to the court adversely effect the republicans? Where is the reality here?
progressoid
(49,962 posts)Would like to know what his stance is on anti-trust law. Apparently he taught it and wrote a book about it.
cstanleytech
(26,276 posts)Hopefully Bernie or Hillary will win and then we have the potential to see some more change as the odds are atleast one or two of the more liberal justices will be retiring which means we need to replace them.
Not to mention Thomas is getting pretty long in the tooth and he could retire especially now that he wont have Scalia there to tell him what his opinion should be.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)cstanleytech
(26,276 posts)however this judge seems somewhat more to left than she appears to be or that Scalia ever was.
The Blue Flower
(5,439 posts)Good move by our President.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)The Senate GOP's plan from the beginning with the obstructionist stance was to get Obama to nominate the most moderate justice possible in order to temper the court before either Clinton/Sanders would skew the court too far left post 2016? If so, then they will approve this pick & get to save face by saying that it was costitutional to do so.
Just a thought.
Blasphemer
(3,261 posts)So this must be a tactical choice. I also think that Obama wants his SCOTUS legacy to be increased diversity so I imagine, under different circumstances, his choice would be a woman and/or person of color.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)I remind you he picked Sonia Sotomayor first hispanic and Elena Kagan
Blasphemer
(3,261 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)This keeps that going. Garland is Jewish. So if he gets on the court there will be 5 catholics and 4 Jews.
houston16revival
(953 posts)on apoplexy watch
Judge Garland likes hiking and skiing and his daughter is hiking in the
mountains he says
That means he might like federal lands and national parks
Republicans prefer someone who worships concrete sidewalks
Punx
(446 posts)...likes Hiking and Skiing
Well both then, and especially the later may mean that he appreciates nature and would support global warming and environmental laws.
Johnny2X2X
(19,015 posts)Not because it hamstrings the GOP, but because it's good for the country. This is a centrist that Obama nominated because he realized he needed to nominate exactly this person in order to have the best chance to continue to have a functioning 1/3 branch of the federal Government.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)yellowcanine
(35,698 posts)salinsky
(1,065 posts)... that he will not meet with Garland.
Brilliant move, Mr. President.
RobinA
(9,888 posts)they'd be that dumb. It's like they've lost even their survival instinct.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)rightists, who are overwhelmingly acceptable to democrats. Democrats nominate "moderates" who are barely acceptable to republicans.
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)Remains to be seen whether the Senate will decline to hold hearings or not but there is no way that Garland will ever be confirmed for the S.C., at least under this Senate.
lark
(23,083 posts)He knows his nominee isn't going to get a break so why didn't he at least appoint someone who'd move the chains instead of a maybe Kennedy clone. Is TPP that important that he'd sell out to get someone who would support it no matter what in place? Sure he couldn't think this would make a difference to Repugs? I know he's smarter than that.
Once again we see the Trojan Horse President in action.
Myrina
(12,296 posts).... by way of Chicago and the GOP.
POTUS never ceases to underwhelm me. Sigh.
wiggs
(7,811 posts)obstructionism, even of republican ideas, that the country has endured. It's not just that Obama has endured their low tactics....it's the country that suffers. 24/7 pressure starting once they have a nominee.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Even Republicans have said so many times.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)salinsky
(1,065 posts)Wait a minute ...
... "temperament"??, "respectful"??, "disagreeing without being disagreeable"???
If he's replacing Scalia, shouldn't this guy be a bigoted, rageaholic, fuckstick??
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)3D Chess wins again!
The government now officially offers nothing to progressives.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Response to Hissyspit (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Hatch is evil. And Hillary loves it. We are so fucked. Time to find change somewhere else besides party politics.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)romanic
(2,841 posts):/