President Obama Nominates Merrick Garland to Supreme Court

supreme_court
Photo by PoPville flickr user Victoria Pickering

Update from the White House:

CdraojnWwAAPL5d.jpg_large

The Washington Post reported:

“Garland, 63, is a longtime Washington lawyer and jurist who is chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Considered a moderate, Garland is widely respected in the D.C. legal community and was also a finalist for the first two Supreme Court vacancies Obama filled.”

The New York Times reported:

“President Obama on Wednesday will nominate Merrick B. Garland as the nation’s 113th justice, according to White House officials, choosing a centrist appeals court judge widely respected even by Republicans in hopes his choice will be considered by the Senate.”

Updates when the official White Release comes at 11am.

20 Comment

  • justinbc

    It’s funny when you GIS him how many images are of everyone involved in the scenario but him.

  • 63 years old? Really? If I was a gambling man, I’d hope the GOP stuck to its collective guns and didn’t confirm him, so HRC could nominate someone 20 years younger. (Which may be the plan . . . who knows?)

    • I think Obama is daring them to obstruct here and risk Hillary appointing someone else. If I was a republican in the Senate, I’d settle for a moderate 63 year old white man and call it a day.

      My guess is there is a deal we don’t know about. Republicans will shuffle papers around for a few more months and when it is clear they may lose the Senate or Hillary may win, they’ll appear conciliatory by pushing through the nomination.

      • Ashy Oldlady

        Yeah, we hope it’s President Clinton, because President Trump will probably nominate Jessie Ventura.

        • I’m bankin on Trump nominating Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown. Leading the way for entertainment to fully merge into politics.

          • I’m just going to go out on a limb here and start buying up copies of Idiocracy. Kind of a dumb movie, but when it becomes the Third Testament, I’ll be sitting on a gold mine.

      • Probably right on all counts (including Jesse Ventura). Wouldn’t it be great, in September or so when the GOP Senators panic and the Judiciary Committee passes him along, if Garland withdrew his nomination? He won’t, of course – why pass up a Supreme Court seat? – but imagine the consternation on the Right?
        .
        (I have a feeling we’ll all have many opportunities to use the phrase “imagine the consternation on the Right?” or the next 9 months.)

  • I met Judge Garland once, and thought that he was very pleasant and unpretentious. I don’t know much about his jurisprudence, but even a ham sandwich on the Supreme Court would be an improvement over that racist homophobe Scalia.

    I guess now McConnell and the Republicans have to decide whether they dig in their heels, or actually proceed to a confirmation hearing and vote. I wouldn’t be shocked if the more practical heads among them decided to cut their losses and approve Garland while they have the chance. If Trump or Cruz gets clobbered in November the Republicans may also lose control of their relatively thin margin in the Senate, and they would potentially face a more identifiably liberal nominee for the Supreme Court. But these days it seems like the inmates are running the asylum, so who knows?

  • Ashy Oldlady

    Is anyone hosting any good watch parties for the confirmation hearings? Maybe with drinks strong enough to revive me each time I nearly die from boredom?

  • anyone else love the white house update? career highlight, career highlight, career highlight, tutoring elementary school students. Now I’m not saying it isn’t a great accomplishment. But the way it reads is a bit odd.

    • binpetworth

      It just goes to show somebody is thinking of the children! 🙂

    • Was mentioned in the press conference as well. I think they’re just trying to paint him as “you’re going to obstruct THIS?” and throwing even the kitchen sink in there. Not that tutoring kids is a bad thing or that his apparent commitment to it isn’t noble and noteworthy, just that it seems like posturing in this context.

  • Clearly a good call-their-bluff nominee. While I prefer a very liberal judge, and a woman one at that, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of point in engaging in that fight right now. In that sense, the repubs have won by their grandstanding. I can’t see HRC appointing a different candidate if his hearings are delayed, as she’ll have the same fight with the Senate. Whether they are smart enough to vote for him – now or after the election if they lose and hearings are delayed – is an open question, though.

    • Why would you want a very liberal judge? Wouldn’t you want someone who is willing to give perspective from both sides and reach a fair and moderate conclusion? The answer isn’t to swing the pendulum in the complete opposite direction.

  • I was hoping Judge Paul Watford a 48-year-old African-American Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would be President Obama choice because he’s displayed exceptional dedication to the legal profession throughout his work,” after his 2012 confirmation. However, President Obama is a lame duck President and the Senate will not approve this nomination until the next USA President is sworn into office.

    • Obama couldnt appoint or should I say wouldnt appoint an AA no matter how qualified he/she was because of the sure backlash that it would incite and claims of political Affirmative Action.

    • I feel like he’s on the short list to replace Ginsburg if Hillary wins (she’ll hold on to that seat until her last breath in an unfavorable political climate). Saving Srinivasan for the more contentious replacement of Thomas down the line.

    • why does no one correctly use “lame duck”? Or are politicians now lame duck as soon as they are in their final term? He’s a lame duck in November.

Comments are closed.