Today at 11:00, President Obama will announce Merrick Garland as his nominee for the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of revered Justice Antonin Scalia.
The announcement comes at a precarious time.
It’s an election year, and Washington is deeply divided along partisan lines. Republicans fear ceding Scalia’s position to a liberal justice would imperil conservative values for decades to come, while the President insists that lawmakers are obligated to live up to their duties under the constitution and consider his pick.
“Obama will need to convince at least 14 Republican senators to join Democrats to break an inevitable filibuster and at least five Republican senators to vote with Democrats for confirmation — but first somehow convince Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to back off from his absolutist position against even giving the nominee a hearing,” Politico notes. “So far, there are few signs that the Republican stand against any action on an Obama nominee is likely to crack [as] all 11 GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed what amounts to a written pledge that no nominee will be granted a hearing until after a new president is sworn in next January.”
If the Senate were to insist on waiting out Obama’s term it would be unprecedented. Lawmakers have never taken longer than 125 days to vote on a nominee. Over the last 116 years, Senators have confirmed 6 of 8 nominees in election years.
"Divisive Supreme Court decisions are more likely to be re-examined — and possibly overturned — when a court changes," The New York Times writes, adding that "in the Roberts Court, 85 cases split 5 to 4 or 5 to 3 with Justice Scalia in the conservative majority, many with similar judicial themes." Here's a look at those cases broken down by theme:
Below, find Obama’s letter announcing...well...announcing his announcement.
* * *
Today, I will announce the person whom I believe is eminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
As President, it is both my constitutional duty to nominate a Justice and one of the most important decisions that I -- or any president -- will make.
I've devoted a considerable amount of time and deliberation to this decision. I've consulted with legal experts and people across the political spectrum, both inside and outside government. And we’ve reached out to every member of the Senate, who each have a responsibility to do their job and take this nomination just as seriously.
Please join me in the Rose Garden at 11:00am Eastern for my announcement.
This is a responsibility I do not take lightly. In considering several candidates, I held each to three principles that reflect the role the Supreme Court plays in our democracy.
First, a Justice should possess an independent mind, unimpeachable credentials, and an unquestionable mastery of law. There is no doubt this person will face complex legal questions, so it is imperative that he or she possess a rigorous intellect that will help provide clear answers.
Second, a Justice should recognize the limits of the judiciary’s role. With a commitment to impartial justice rather than any particular ideology, the next Supreme Court Justice will understand that the job is to interpret the law, not make law.
However, I know there will be cases before the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear. In those cases, a Justice’s analysis will necessarily be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment.
Therefore, the third quality I looked for in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly-changing times. In my view, that’s an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.
Today at 11:00am Eastern, I’ll introduce you to the judge I believe meets all three of these standards.
I’m confident you’ll share my conviction that this American is not only eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, but deserves a fair hearing, and an up-or-down vote.
In putting forward a nominee today, I am fulfilling my constitutional duty. I’m doing my job. I hope that our Senators will do their jobs, and move quickly to consider my nominee. That is what the Constitution dictates, and that’s what the American people expect and deserve from their leaders.
President Barack Obama
* * *
And here's more on his nominee from ThinkProgress:
Garland is unquestionably qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. A 19 year veteran of the DC Circuit — a court that is widely viewed as the second-most powerful in the nation — Garland graduated with high honors from Harvard Law School. He clerked for Justice William Brennan, and spent a few years as a partner in the multinational law firm Arnold and Porter. He also held senior positions in the Justice Department, including a leadership role in the department’s criminal division and a stint as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General.
At age 63, Garland is also the oldest person nominated to the Supreme Court since President Nixon named Justice Lewis Powell in 1971. Thus, if confirmed, Garland is unlikely to match — or even approach — Justice Scalia’s nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court.
Garland’s relatively advanced age may help explain why Hatch floated the DC Circuit chief judge as his ideal Obama nominee. Another factor that almost certainly played a role is Garland’sreputation for moderation. In 2003, for example, Garland joined an opinion holding that the federal judiciary lacks the authority “to assert habeas corpus jurisdiction at the behest of an alien held at a military base leased from another nation, a military base outside the sovereignty of the United States” — an opinion that effectively prohibited Guantanamo Bay detainees from seeking relief in civilian courts. A little over a year later, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in Rasul v. Bush. Although, in fairness, it should be noted that legal experts disagree about whether the decision Garland joined was mandated by existing precedents.
The former prosecutor also has a relatively conservative record on criminal justice. A 2010 examination of his decisions by SCOTUSBlog’s Tom Goldstein determined that “Judge Garland rarely votes in favor of criminal defendants’ appeals of their convictions.” Goldstein “identified only eight such published rulings,” in addition to seven where “he voted to reverse the defendant’s sentence in whole or in part, or to permit the defendant to raise a argument relating to sentencing on remand,” during the 13 years Garland had then spent on the DC Circuit.
To be clear, Garland’s record does not suggest that he would join the Court’s right flank if confirmed to the Supreme Court. He would likely vote much more often than not with the Supreme Court’s liberals, while occasionally casting a heterodox vote.
* * *
And more from his biography:
Merrick Garland was born on November 13, 1952 in Chicago, Illinois. He graduated from Harvard Law and became Special Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice. In private practice he supervised the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing and Unibomber cases. Garland currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Born Merrick Brian Garland on November 13, 1952, in Chicago, Illinois, to parents Cyril and Shirley Garland. His father founded Garland Advertising in the city, while his mother became director of volunteer services at the Council for Jewish Elderly. Garland grew up in the upper middle-class suburb of Lincolnwood, Illinois, where he attended Niles West High School. Garland excelled academically, becoming a member of the Presidential Scholars Program and a National Merit Scholar before his graduation in 1970.
Garland attended Harvard College after high school, quickly rising to the top of his class and becoming an editor for The Harvard Law Review. In 1974 he was named valedictorian of his graduating class, and earned a bachelor's degree in Social Studies. He then set his sights on law school, graduating with a Juris Doctor from Harvard Law in 1977.
Following his matriculation, Garland clerked for Judge Henry Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. In 1979, Garland was tapped for a position as Special Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice. He served in this capacity until 1981, then entered private practice at Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C., where his responsibilities included the supervising the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing and UNABOM cases. For his efforts, he was named as a partner to the firm in 1985.
Garland left the private sector in 1989 to serve as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. After a brief return to Arnold & Porter in 1992, Garland was named as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He was promoted to Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and served in this capacity until his appointment as U.S. Circuit Judge during the Clinton administration in 1997.