Always a bridesmaid: This could be Merrick Garland's long-awaited Supreme Court moment.
Settling for a centrist candidate with decades of judicial
experience, President Barack Obama will nominate Merrick Garland, a
federal appeals judge in Washington, D.C., to the Supreme Court seat
left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, according to The Associated Press and congressional sources.
If confirmed, Garland, 63, wouldn't bring diversity to the court as much a lengthy résumé in public service, including stints in the Department of Justice and on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where he has served since 1997 and is now the chief judge.
An eventual appointment for Garland is also less likely to mark a liberal shift in the Supreme Court. If anything, his contributions -- given his age and his moderate record so far -- are likely to be more pragmatic than path-marking for some of the country's most hotly contested legal issues, such as voting rights, gun control and the scope of presidential powers.
For those very reasons, Garland is the least controversial -- and likely the most confirmable -- of all the candidates who were reportedly considered for the vacancy. It is possible Obama chose him for the post to defuse the confirmation fight that Senate Republicans have promised since the moment Scalia died.
Obama seriously considered Garland in 2010 for the opening created by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. He was ultimately passed over for Elena Kagan, then the president's top lawyer before the Supreme Court.
Garland has some pluses that could serve him well in a polarized environment, including knowing Chief Justice John Roberts -- the two clerked for famed New York judge Henry Friendly and participated in cases together on the D.C. Circuit, when Roberts served there between 2003 and 2005.
An honors graduate of Harvard Law School, Garland is also chief judge of a federal court that's widely regarded as second only to the Supreme Court: The D.C. Circuit is not only a pipeline of sorts for future justices -- Scalia and Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also sat there -- but it also hears major cases on federal regulatory action on net neutrality, health care and the environment.
"Judge Garland's record demonstrates that he is essentially the model, neutral judge," wrote SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein in 2010, when the White House first vetted him for a seat on the high court. "He is acknowledged by all to be brilliant. His opinions avoid unnecessary, sweeping pronouncements."
Under the Constitution, it is now the Senate's role to consider Obama's nomination, providing the necessary "advice and consent" to decide whether Garland should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Since Scalia's death, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have repeatedly vowed to not even consider anyone the president nominates, arguing that whoever wins the general election in November should name the next justice.
This has enraged Democrats and sparked weeks of political mudslinging, charges of opportunism and accusations that Senate Republicans are refusing to do their jobs.
At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) candidly recognized that his party's obstructionism over the nomination was more about politics than anything else.
In response, the White House and progressive groups are ready for what looks to be a monumental fight to get the nominee confirmed -- setting their sights on Republican incumbents, including Grassley, whose staunch opposition to holding confirmation hearings could backfire at the polls.
Republicans are planning a ground game, too, forming their own "SCOTUS task force" to combat whatever the White House and its allies may have up their sleeves.
"This will be the most comprehensive judicial response effort in our party's history," Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus promised in a statement.
This will be updated.
If confirmed, Garland, 63, wouldn't bring diversity to the court as much a lengthy résumé in public service, including stints in the Department of Justice and on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where he has served since 1997 and is now the chief judge.
An eventual appointment for Garland is also less likely to mark a liberal shift in the Supreme Court. If anything, his contributions -- given his age and his moderate record so far -- are likely to be more pragmatic than path-marking for some of the country's most hotly contested legal issues, such as voting rights, gun control and the scope of presidential powers.
For those very reasons, Garland is the least controversial -- and likely the most confirmable -- of all the candidates who were reportedly considered for the vacancy. It is possible Obama chose him for the post to defuse the confirmation fight that Senate Republicans have promised since the moment Scalia died.
Obama seriously considered Garland in 2010 for the opening created by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. He was ultimately passed over for Elena Kagan, then the president's top lawyer before the Supreme Court.
Garland has some pluses that could serve him well in a polarized environment, including knowing Chief Justice John Roberts -- the two clerked for famed New York judge Henry Friendly and participated in cases together on the D.C. Circuit, when Roberts served there between 2003 and 2005.
An honors graduate of Harvard Law School, Garland is also chief judge of a federal court that's widely regarded as second only to the Supreme Court: The D.C. Circuit is not only a pipeline of sorts for future justices -- Scalia and Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also sat there -- but it also hears major cases on federal regulatory action on net neutrality, health care and the environment.
"Judge Garland's record demonstrates that he is essentially the model, neutral judge," wrote SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein in 2010, when the White House first vetted him for a seat on the high court. "He is acknowledged by all to be brilliant. His opinions avoid unnecessary, sweeping pronouncements."
Under the Constitution, it is now the Senate's role to consider Obama's nomination, providing the necessary "advice and consent" to decide whether Garland should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Since Scalia's death, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have repeatedly vowed to not even consider anyone the president nominates, arguing that whoever wins the general election in November should name the next justice.
This has enraged Democrats and sparked weeks of political mudslinging, charges of opportunism and accusations that Senate Republicans are refusing to do their jobs.
At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) candidly recognized that his party's obstructionism over the nomination was more about politics than anything else.
In response, the White House and progressive groups are ready for what looks to be a monumental fight to get the nominee confirmed -- setting their sights on Republican incumbents, including Grassley, whose staunch opposition to holding confirmation hearings could backfire at the polls.
Republicans are planning a ground game, too, forming their own "SCOTUS task force" to combat whatever the White House and its allies may have up their sleeves.
"This will be the most comprehensive judicial response effort in our party's history," Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus promised in a statement.
This will be updated.
No comments:
Post a Comment