Give Judge Garland a hearing: Our view

Supreme Court nominee deserves better than a cold shoulder from the GOP Senate. So does the nation.

Poor Merrick Garland. By virtually all accounts a remarkably well-qualified federal judge, Garland has the dubious distinction of being President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court at a time when the Republican leader of the Senate promises he’ll never allow confirmation hearings or a vote on any Obama pick, no matter who it is. Many GOP senators, in fact, say they won’t even give Garland the courtesy of a face-to-face meeting when he makes the rounds on Capitol Hill.

So when Garland stood in the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday to accept what he called the greatest honor in his life, that was probably the high point of the process. Instantly, he became a symbol of the dysfunction and partisan rancor that has degraded Congress and helped create some of the ugliest election-year rhetoric in modern memory.

Last month's death of Justice Antonin Scalia, long the anchor of the court’s conservative wing, gave Obama the chance to appoint a justice who could change the ideological balance of the court for years. So the stakes are even higher than usual. On the day Scalia’s death was disclosed, top Senate Republicans promised to block any confirmation vote on an Obama nominee and run out the clock in hopes a GOP president could pick the new justice next year. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and his allies disingenuously insist they’re simply letting voters have a say.

As chief judge of the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Garland is arguably the most influential jurist who isn’t already on the Supreme Court. He has a reputation for even-handedness and consensus-building. Hearings would allow senators and the public to learn more about his judicial philosophy, his record and his temperament — and to decide whether he's the right pick for a court that already has five justices who attended Harvard Law School.

At 63, Garland would not likely remain on the court for as long as a younger nominee, a tacit concession to Republicans. He is highly regarded enough that he has been on Obama’s Supreme Court short list for years, apparently held in reserve for a moment just like this one, when Obama would need a nominee Republicans have so thoroughly praised that they'd have a hard time opposing him.

Supreme Court nominee deserves better than a cold shoulder from the GOP Senate. So does the nation.

Poor Merrick Garland. By virtually all accounts a remarkably well-qualified federal judge, Garland has the dubious distinction of being President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court at a time when the Republican leader of the Senate promises he’ll never allow confirmation hearings or a vote on any Obama pick, no matter who it is. Many GOP senators, in fact, say they won’t even give Garland the courtesy of a face-to-face meeting when he makes the rounds on Capitol Hill.

So when Garland stood in the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday to accept what he called the greatest honor in his life, that was probably the high point of the process. Instantly, he became a symbol of the dysfunction and partisan rancor that has degraded Congress and helped create some of the ugliest election-year rhetoric in modern memory.

Last month's death of Justice Antonin Scalia, long the anchor of the court’s conservative wing, gave Obama the chance to appoint a justice who could change the ideological balance of the court for years. So the stakes are even higher than usual. On the day Scalia’s death was disclosed, top Senate Republicans promised to block any confirmation vote on an Obama nominee and run out the clock in hopes a GOP president could pick the new justice next year. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and his allies disingenuously insist they’re simply letting voters have a say.

As chief judge of the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Garland is arguably the most influential jurist who isn’t already on the Supreme Court. He has a reputation for even-handedness and consensus-building. Hearings would allow senators and the public to learn more about his judicial philosophy, his record and his temperament — and to decide whether he's the right pick for a court that already has five justices who attended Harvard Law School.

At 63, Garland would not likely remain on the court for as long as a younger nominee, a tacit concession to Republicans. He is highly regarded enough that he has been on Obama’s Supreme Court short list for years, apparently held in reserve for a moment just like this one, when Obama would need a nominee Republicans have so thoroughly praised that they'd have a hard time opposing him.

Veteran Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, openly advocated for Garland when Obama was considering Supreme Court nominees in 2010, insisting the judge would be “a consensus nominee” who would get strong support from Republicans.

Well, that was then. Now, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the current Judiciary Committee chairman, has vowed that no Obama Supreme Court nominee will get a committee hearing, though he seemed to waver Wednesday about not even meeting with Obama’s pick.  That would be a step forward for basic courtesy at least.

Over the years, there has been plenty of political gamesmanship and hypocrisy from both parties — including from Vice President Biden when he was Judiciary chairman — on court nominees. Neither side comes to this fight with clean hands. But blocking consideration of a Supreme Court nominee, one who appears to have impeccable credentials and fall within the broad judicial mainstream, for almost an entire year will only invite similar retribution when the situation is reversed.

Merrick Garland deserves better. The country deserves better.

Well, that was then. Now, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the current Judiciary Committee chairman, has vowed that no Obama Supreme Court nominee will get a committee hearing, though he seemed to waver Wednesday about not even meeting with Obama’s pick.  That would be a step forward for basic courtesy at least.

Over the years, there has been plenty of political gamesmanship and hypocrisy from both parties — including from Vice President Biden when he was Judiciary chairman — on court nominees. Neither side comes to this fight with clean hands. But blocking consideration of a Supreme Court nominee, one who appears to have impeccable credentials and fall within the broad judicial mainstream, for almost an entire year will only invite similar retribution when the situation is reversed.

Merrick Garland deserves better. The country deserves better.

Source: USA Today