Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland

See: Supreme Court vacancy, 2017: An overview

• Justices
  • 
    CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS
  • ASSOCIATE JUSTICES
    • SAMUEL ALITO
    • AMY CONEY BARRETT
    • NEIL GORSUCH
    • KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
    • ELENA KAGAN
    • BRETT KAVANAUGH
    • SONIA SOTOMAYOR
    • CLARENCE THOMAS
• CASES BY TERM
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2018-2019
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2017-2018
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2016-2017
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2015-2016
  • All earlier cases
• HISTORY OF THE COURT
  • Cases by chief justice
  • Cases by decade
• Recent vacancies
  • 2022 VACANCY AND JACKSON CONFIRMATION
  • 2020 VACANCY AND BARRETT CONFIRMATION
  • 2018 VACANCY AND KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION
  • 2017 VACANCY AND GORSUCH CONFIRMATION

• 

  Merrick Garland

• 

  Nomination process

• 

  2017 SCOTUS vacancy

• 

  Presidential candidates on Judge Garland's nomination

• 

  U.S. Senators on Judge Garland's nomination

On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Garland was President Obama's third nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Garland, currently chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court, was rumored to be under consideration to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens in 2010 following Stevens' retirement; that appointment instead went to Justice Elena Kagan.

For more on the 2017 nomination, see Supreme Court vacancy, 2017: An overview

Timeline

The following timeline highlights major events attending the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court.

• January 18, 2017: For the first time since his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in March of 2016, Chief Judge Merrick Garland returned to the bench as a panelist on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was joined by Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Sri Srinivasan, hearing arguments in three cases.

• January 3, 2017: In accordance with the sine die adjournment of the 114th Congress, Judge Garland's nomination was returned to President Obama. 294 days passed between Judge Garland's nomination on March 16, 2016, and the return of his nomination on January 3, 2017. The 294-day period set a record for the longest interval from nomination to Senate action for any Supreme Court nominee, besting the 125-day interval attending Justice Louis Brandeis' nomination in 1916.

• December 19, 2016: The public calendar for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit indicated that Judge Garland would return to hearing cases on that court beginning January 18, 2017, as part of a three-judge panel with judges Sri Srinivasan and Brett Kavanaugh. These will be the first cases that Judge Garland is scheduled to hear on the D.C. Circuit since his nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States on March 16, 2016. Absent a recess appointment, Judge Garland's nomination will be returned to the president at the close of the 114th Congress in January 2017.

• December 14, 2016: At the annual Hanukkah reception at the White House on December 14, President Obama called Garland “one of the country’s finest jurists,” and said that Garland would “continue to serve our country with distinction as the chief judge on the D.C. Circuit.”

• December 7, 2016: In a one page order, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed an appeal brought by New Mexico resident Steven Michel, who filed a lawsuit in a federal district court which sought to force the Senate to vote on the stalled nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court of the United States. That lawsuit was dismissed in November by Judge Rudolph Contreras, who held that Michel lacked legal standing to bring such a suit. In upholding Judge Contreras' decision, the circuit panel agreed that "the district court correctly held that appellant lacked standing to bring this action because he failed to demonstrate an injury in fact. Rather than being 'concrete and particularized' ... appellant’s alleged injury – the diminution of the effectiveness of his votes for Senators – is 'wholly abstract and widely dispersed.'"

• November 24, 2016: The Associated Press reported that Merrick Garland would return to hearing cases on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit "for the first time in months." It was not immediately clear when Judge Garland would return to hearing cases, but the report noted, "Garland's chances of getting confirmed evaporated with Donald Trump's election as president, and the judge is expected to return to the bench at the federal courthouse."

• November 22, 2016: Steven Michel, a New Mexico resident who filed a lawsuit seeking to force the Senate to vote on the Merrick Garland nomination, filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On November 18, Judge Rudolph Contreras of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Michel's lawsuit for lack of standing. Michel is appealing that ruling to the D.C. Circuit.

• November 22, 2016: White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest remarked on the Merrick Garland nomination, stating, "His treatment and the way this situation is likely to end is a scar on the institution of the United States Senate ... It is a scar that I do not anticipate will go away quickly."

• November 18, 2016: A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a resident of New Mexico, Steve Michel, who alleged that "he had the legal standing to bring the case because he is among those who have 'had the effectiveness of their vote for United States senators diminished' because the senators who represent him have been denied their ability to vote on Garland’s nomination." In a five-page opinion, Judge Rudolph Contreras dismissed Michel's suit, holding that Michel "had not shown that he has suffered an individualized injury such that he can maintain his action."

• November 8, 2016: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election. According to ABC News contributor and law professor Kate Shaw, "Absent something wildly unexpected, Garland will go back to being Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit, and, after inauguration, Trump will nominate someone new to fill the vacancy."

For more, see 2016 presidential candidates on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland

• November 7, 2016: According to an ABC News report, U.S. Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) suggested that Republicans in the Senate would commit a "dereliction of duty" if they failed to act on any Supreme Court nominee put forth during a Hillary Clinton (D) presidency. Sen. Purdue said, "I hear what's being said about that, but I think that's a dereliction of duty ... We're called to advise and consent. Now, we can say no, but that means that you do have a hearing. So I'm going to be one that says 'Look, our oath of office says that we're going to govern, and that's what we should do."

• November 4, 2016: In an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said, "My prediction is this: if Hillary Clinton wins next Tuesday, Garland will be confirmed before January ... He’s probably a lot more conservative than anybody she would appoint. If Donald Trump wins, there probably won’t be a confirmation of Merrick Garland.

• October 29, 2016: In a meeting with supporters in Mooresville, North Carolina, U.S. Sen. Richard Burr (R) said, "If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that four years from now we've still got an opening on the Supreme Court ... I think on the things that are important to the country, there's a better chance that the lower court or the appellate court will get the right answer before it gets to the Supreme Court."

• October 28, 2016: In offering up a "prediction" on the Supreme Court nomination process should Garland not receive consideration "during a post-election lame duck session," Democratic vice presidential nominee and Virginia Senator Tim Kaine said, "We will change the Senate rules to uphold the law, that the court will be nine members ... I was in the Senate when the Republicans’ stonewalling around appointments caused Senate Democratic majority to switch the vote threshold on appointments from 60 to 51. And we did it on everything but a Supreme Court justice ... If these guys think they’re going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say, ‘We’re not going to let you thwart the law.' ... The battle is: Do we want a lawfully constituted full court or will we let the Republicans have a hobbled, limited and weakened court? ... The voters are going to stop them, or we’re going to stop them." Kaine also noted that "I think there’s still a significant likelihood that Merrick Garland will get a vote before the end of the year."

• October 27, 2016: Replying to statements made by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Vermont senator and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said, "Republicans are proving that they have no intention of doing their jobs and that their blockade of judicial nominees is purely driven by politics. This amounts to piecemeal evisceration of the Constitution. I hope that reasonable Republicans will repudiate these calls for wholesale and enduring obstruction."

• October 27, 2016: In response to statements made by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made earlier in the week regarding the Supreme Court nomination, Arizona Senator Jeff Flake (R) said, "You won’t be surprised, I do not agree. There’s a difference between what might be constitutional and what you could do politically and what you should do. And I think leaving a vacancy for up to four years is not why we’re here ... It may be what becomes a litmus test if you’re a true conservative ... Just to go on record, I won’t be part of that ... I think there are enough people here who do not see it as the Senate’s proper role to hold somebody indefinitely ... I would not block cloture on Merrick Garland. In fact if Hillary Clinton (D) wins the election, I will be actively trying to round up votes to have hearings for him in a lame duck session ... I’m not pretending he's a conservative or somebody we’d put up if we were in the White House, but I do think he’s more conservative than somebody that Hillary Clinton might nominate, particularly if she has a Democratic Senate."

• October 26, 2016: In a WFMZ-TV report, Jeffrey Toobin, senior legal analyst for CNN, reportedly told an audience at Moravian College in Pennsylvania that if Hillary Clinton (D) is elected president, she would renominate Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court and that Garland would confirmed.

• October 26, 2016: In remarks first reported by The Washington Post, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) "indicated that Republicans could seek to block a Democratic president from filling the vacant Supreme Court seat indefinitely." He said, "There will be plenty of time for debate on that issue ... There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice [Stephen] Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have."

• October 26, 2016: In an email to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Senator Harry Reid, the outgoing Democratic leader in the Senate, said, "We need to treat it like the constitutional crisis it will be if Democrats don't take back the Senate majority ... The Supreme Court could dwindle to 7, then maybe 6, Justices. It would turn our Justice system and our democracy on its head. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves."

• October 25, 2016: In an interview with Bloomberg's Masters in Politics podcast, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar (D) said in regards to Hillary Clinton (D) potentially renominating Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, "That is going to be entirely up to her and I really couldn't predict what would happen ... She has said that she's going to make her own decision. I do think he’s someone who’s qualified and would get probably confirmed rather quickly, but that it’s going to be up to her." When asked to comment on the delayed confirmation process, Klobuchar added, "Well, I’m hopeful we’ll have a hearing and can get a vote. There have been some rumblings about that certain senators have talked about doing that, again Senator Flake. Senator Grassley was at a town hall and someone asked and he said, ‘Well, enough people, other senators, talk to me about it maybe I'll look at that.’ To me we just can’t keep going like this ... Can you imagine if we wait another six months, or a year, with all of these cases pending it's gotten to the point where it will be a constitutional crisis?"

• October 24, 2016: In a Talking Points Memo report, Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) felt that a prospective Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate could review the rules governing confirmation votes of U.S. Supreme Court nominees, "I really do believe that I have set the Senate so when I leave, we’re going to be able to get judges done with a majority. It takes only a simple majority anymore. And, it’s clear to me that if the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, I’ve told 'em how and I’ve done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. It’ll have to be done again ... They mess with the Supreme Court, it'll be changed just like that in my opinion ... So I’ve set that up. I feel very comfortable with that."

• October 20, 2016: In an interview with The Des Moines Register, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) suggested that the costs associated with a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland are another reason not to schedule hearings on the nomination, "My staff tells me that’s about a half a million to $750,000 to hire people to maybe work for three or four months to do it ... So when 52 senators say they’re not going to take it up ... should I spend that money and have a hearing?"

• October 20, 2016: Arizona Senator Jeff Flake (R), in addressing the Garland nomination, suggested that he would encourage a lame-duck confirmation process should Hillary Clinton (D) win the presidential election, "I said if we were in a position like we were in in '96 and we pretty much knew the outcome that we ought to move forward. But I think we passed that awhile ago ... If Hillary Clinton is president-elect then we should move forward with hearings in the lame duck. That's what I'm encouraging my colleagues to do."

• October 19, 2016: During the third and final presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace began the debate with a question about the U.S. Supreme Court, the vacancy on the court, and the types of justices both candidates would put forward as nominees:
  

For more, see Impact of the 2016 election on the United States Supreme Court

“

Wallace: Secretary Clinton, Mr. Trump, welcome. Let's get right to it. The first topic is the Supreme Court. You both talked briefly about the court in the last debate, but I want to drill down on this because the next president will almost certainly have at least one appointment and likely or possibly two or three appointments which means that you will in effect determine the balance of the court for what could be the next quarter century. First of all, where do you want to see the court take the country? And secondly, what’s your view on how the constitution should be interpreted? Do the founders' words mean what they say or is it a living document to be applied flexibly, according to changing circumstances? In this segment, secretary Clinton, you go first. You have two minutes. Clinton: Thank you very much Chris and thanks to UNLV for hosting us. You know, I think when we talk about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election. Namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have? And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system. I have major disagreements with my opponent about these issues and others that will be before the Supreme Court. But I feel that at this point in our country's history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United, we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace, that we stand up and basically say, the Supreme Court should represent all of us. That's how I see the court. And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on behalf of our rights as Americans. And I look forward to having that opportunity. I would hope that the Senate would do its job and confirm the nominee that President Obama has sent to them. That's the way the constitution fundamentally should operate. The President nominates and the Senate advises and consents or not. But they go forward with the process. Wallace: Secretary Clinton, thank you. Mr. Trump, same question. Where do you want to see the court take the country and how do you believe the constitution should be interpreted? Trump: Well, first of all, it’s so great to be with you and thank you, everybody. The Supreme Court, it is what it is all about. Our country is so, so, it is just so imperative that we have the right justices. Something happened recently where Justice Ginsburg made some very inappropriate statements toward me and toward a tremendous number of people. Many, many millions of people that I represent and she was forced to apologize. And apologize she did. But these were statements that should never, ever have been made. We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the second amendment and all amendments, but the second amendment which is under absolute siege. I believe, if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don't think will happen, we will have a second amendment which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now. But I feel that it is absolutely important that we uphold because of the fact that it is under such trauma. I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint, and I've named 20 of them. The justices that I am going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent. They will be protecting the second amendment. They are great scholars in all cases and they're people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted and I believe that’s very important. I don't think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear. It is all about the constitution of, and it is so important. The constitution the way it was meant to be. And those are the people that I will appoint.

”

• October 18, 2016: Speaking to reporters in response to comments made by U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that the GOP would be "united against any Supreme Court nominee" made by Hillary Clinton, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) stated that Senate Republicans "can't simply just stonewall" a prospective Clinton nomination. Grassley added, "I think we have a responsibility to very definitely vet ... whoever nominee that person puts forward. We have the same responsibility for Trump. ... We will very clearly vet ... and once that's done, make a decision whether we'll vote for or against."

• October 18, 2016: Two incumbent senators in close races, Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), addressed the Garland nomination in separate comments. Toomey was confident that "advise and consent would occur quickly no matter who the president is," while Ayotte restated her position "that the people should weigh in and that has not changed. We will see who they elect and the next president will make the choice and we will go forward with the confirmation process."

• October 18, 2016: According to a report in Roll Call, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) discounted the possibility that Judge Garland could be confirmed in a lame duck session of the Senate, "I’ve heard that. I don’t think there’ll be any cute tricks like that. I think the point is that if the Republicans hold up Merrick Garland — this notable, qualified man — then we’re going to have to wait to see who, if she renominates him or somebody else ... But it’s really hard. It’s hard procedurally unless you have a majority to do something before the Senate’s organized."

• October 17, 2016: The New York Times quoted Arizona Senator John McCain (R) stating that Republican opposition to Supreme Court nominees could continue into a potential Hillary Clinton (D) presidency. McCain's quotes came from a radio interview with Philadelphia host Dom Giordano. McCain said, "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up ... I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered. This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades." A McCain spokeswoman, Rachael Dean, when asked to clarify McCain's remarks said, "Sen. McCain believes you can only judge people by their record, and Hillary Clinton has a clear record of supporting liberal judicial nominees. That being said, Sen. McCain will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications, as he has done throughout his career."

• October 12, 2016: The Washington Post reported that Utah Senator Mike Lee (R), after a debate against his Democratic opponent Misty Snow, made the following comments regarding the stalled nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, "Make no mistake: As a former law clerk ... I don’t believe there would be a real substantive distinction, a real noticeable difference between the voting pattern of a justice who would be appointed by a President Hillary Clinton ... and Merrick Garland. I just don’t think there is much, if any, difference ... Not a single Democratic nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court since then has voted independently on those matters. Not one ... Republicans have been all over the map, all over the spectrum. Democrats vote in lock step ...That is how it works. I don’t think Merrick Garland would be any different. The only difference is his age."

• October 10-11, 2016: In an interview with Charlie Rose that aired on October 10 and 11, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that, "Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees" and that "I would like to see the court have a full house by the time this term ends." The Supreme Court's term runs traditionally from the first Monday in October until the end of June.

• October 9, 2016: During the second presidential debate in St. Louis, Missouri, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton discussed the type of Supreme Court justices she would nominate as president, "I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but maybe they tried more cases."

• October 3, 2016: On the day that the U.S. Supreme Court opened its 2016 October term, Arizona Senator Jeff Flake (R) said that, "Our position shouldn’t be that the next president ought to decide. Nobody really believes that, because if this were the last year of a Republican presidency nobody would say that ... If we come to a point where we've lost the election, and we can get a centrist like Garland in there as opposed to someone like Hillary Clinton might appoint then I'd go for it."

• October 2, 2016: The Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Center (DPCC) released a report called What's at stake: the diminished Supreme Court enters a new term which highlighted the issues facing the court this term and noted, "This year will mark the first time since 1864 that the Supreme Court been without a full complement of justices on election day." October 2 marked the 200th day since Judge Merrick Garland was nominated by President Obama to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.

• September 17, 2016: President Obama devoted a portion of his weekly address to discuss the Senate's refusal to give a hearing to Merrick Garland, saying, "The Republicans who run this Congress aren’t doing their jobs ... they have made Merrick Garland, a Supreme Court nominee with more federal judicial experience than any other in history, wait longer than any other in history for the simple courtesy of a hearing, let alone a vote. All because they want their nominee for President to fill that seat."

• September 15, 2016: In a radio interview, Hillary Clinton (D) said that "she would 'look broadly and widely' for a nominee if she has the opportunity to make 'any' Supreme Court nomination." She did not, however, rule out the possibility of re-nominating Merrick Garland should that be necessary in 2017.

• September 14, 2016: Merrick Garland held meetings on Capitol Hill with Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Democratic whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) Sen. Reid told reporters after his meeting with Judge Garland, "Meeting with Judge Garland is so difficult because this good man should be on the Supreme Court right now." Sen. Durbin said that he would recommend Garland to Hillary Clinton (D) should she be elected president, saying, "She could start filling the first vacancy without a lot of sound and fury."

• September 13, 2016: Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate stated that Merrick Garland would not receive a confirmation hearing during a lame-duck session in 2016. Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, "We've already made it very clear that a nomination for the Supreme Court by this president will not be filled this year." Majority whip John Cornyn of Texas, when asked if there was any possibility Garland would be considered during the lame-duck session, responded, "No."

• September 8, 2016: Vice President Joseph Biden held a press event with Democratic members of Congress on the steps of the U.S. Capitol urging the Senate to avoid setting a "dangerous precedent" in failing to give an up or down vote on Merrick Garland's nomination. The Vice President said, "Do your job in terms of not spreading the dysfunction of the Congress to the Supreme Court of the United States."

• September 8, 2016: Merrick Garland met with U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) as part of a "broader public relations push to pressure Republicans on confirming" Judge Garland.

• September 7, 2016: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in response to an audience question at Georgetown University Law Caenter regarding Judge Garland's nomination, said, "I do think cooler heads will prevail, I hope sooner rather than later ... The president is elected for four years, not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four. And maybe our members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that's how it should be." At the same event, Justice Ginsburg acknowledged that compelling the U.S. Senate to act on the nomination would be difficult,

“

If the Senate doesn't act, and the Senate is not acting, what can be done about it? Even if you could conceive of a testing lawsuit, what would the response be? 'Well, you want us to vote, so we'll vote no.'"

”

• September 6, 2016: In a floor speech, Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stated his objection to nonessential committees meeting until Merrick Garland receives a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee,

“

To show the American people’s absolute disgust with how Republicans have treated Merrick Garland’s nomination, starting today I’m objecting to nonessential committees meeting for other purposes until the Judiciary Committee schedules a meeting to consider Judge Garland’s nomination. If the Republican leader thinks there is a committee that needs to meet because of extraordinary circumstances, I would be pleased to consider his request. But in the meantime, as of today, I’m objecting to committees meeting in line with the rules of the Senate.

”

• August 30, 2016: A report in the Globe Gazette stated that Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) would consider a lame-duck hearing on Judge Garland "if a large number of senators strongly urged him to consider the nomination." Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), through a spokesperson, reiterated his opposition to holding a Garland hearing before the next president is inaugurated. According to Don Stewart, McConnell's deputy communications chief, "The leader has been clear, the next president will make this nomination."

• August 25, 2016: New Mexico environmental attorney Steven S. Michel filed a petition with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia urging the court to compel Senate action on the Garland nomination, "arguing that the case has created a constitutional crisis that threatens the balance and separation of power among our three branches of government." Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) were named defendants in the petition, as was the United States Senate as an institutional defendant.

• August 12, 2016: One day after Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stated his opinion that Secretary Clinton would pursue a Garland nomination to the Supreme Court were she elected president, Politico reported that several Democratic senators indicated the same position. Democratic whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) indicated that he would encourage Clinton to renominate Garland to the Supreme Court, saying, "I think he’s an extraordinary judge who has a highly, well-qualified rating from the bar associations."

• August 11, 2016: In a conference call with reporters, outgoing Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that he felt that Hillary Clinton would continue to advance Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court if she was elected president, "She can do whatever she wants but I am convinced that she would move forward with Garland ... I would think that she and the people around her would say, 'Why do we need to draw out the vote here? Let’s get him confirmed quickly and move onto the next one whenever that comes.'"

• August 3, 2016: The William J. Clinton Presidential Library released more than 1,300 files regarding the Clinton White House's vetting of Merrick Garland prior to his nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The release came as a result of Freedom of Information Act request.

• July 21, 2016: In response to a reporter's question regarding consideration of a potential withdrawal by the president of Merrick Garland's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said, "No, there is no chance that President Obama will withdraw his nominee to the Supreme Court, Chief Judge Merrick Garland. And the President and his team, including Chief Judge Garland, remain 100 percent committed to seeing through his nomination and seeing it result in his appointment to the Supreme Court."

• July 20, 2016: A nomination tracker from Reuters that "marks the time from the date that a president officially presented the nomination to final action in the Senate, whether for or against the nominee" shows that Judge Garland has surpassed the 125-day record of Justice Louis Brandeis in waiting for an action on a nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.

• July 19, 2016: White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest made a statement at the beginning of his daily press briefing noting that "Chief Judge Garland’s nomination has now been pending longer than any Supreme Court nominee in history whose nomination was not otherwise withdrawn."

• July 17, 2016: President Obama published an editorial in The Wall Street Journal calling for a vote on Judge Garland's nomination, calling the Senate's inaction "much more serious than your typical case of Washington dysfunction. And if we allow it to continue, the consequences of congressional inaction could weaken our most important institutions, erode public trust and undermine our democracy."

• July 11, 2016: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated her belief that the Senate should hold hearings on Judge Garland, "That's their job ... There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year." Of Judge Garland, Justice Ginsburg stated, "I think he is about as well qualified as any nominee to this court ... Super bright and very nice, very easy to deal with. And super prepared. He would be a great colleague."

• June 21, 2016: The American Bar Association, which provides recommendations on all Article III judicial nominees, gave its highest rating for Judge Garland's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, Unanimously Well Qualified.

• June 9, 2016: Judge Garland met with Democratic senator Maria Cantwell of Washington on June 9.

• May 29, 2016: Judge Garland gave the commencement address at his alma mater, Niles West High School in Skokie, Ill.

• May 26, 2016: Judge Garland met with Republican senator Orrin Hatch of Utah on May 26. The Deseret News inadvertently published an op-ed authored by Senator Hatch in draft form ahead of the meeting with Judge Garland.

• May 25, 2016: Judge Garland met with Democratic senator Barbara Boxer of California on May 25.

• May 19, 2016: Judge Garland met with Democratic senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico on May 19.

• May 18, 2016: Senate Democrats held a mock confirmation hearing for Judge Garland in which witnesses gave testimony to Judge Garland's capacity to serve as a Supreme Court justice. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said that the event was "obviously not a substitute for a hearing with Judge Garland."

• May 18, 2016: Judge Garland met with Democratic senators Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Tom Udall of New Mexico, and Chris Murphy of Connecticut on May 18.

• May 17, 2016: Judge Garland met with Democratic senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island on May 17.

• May 12, 2016: Judge Garland met with Democratic senator Jon Tester of Montana on May 12.

• May 11, 2016: Judge Garland met with Democratic senators Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Tom Carper of Delaware, and Ed Markey of Massachusetts on May 11.

• May 10, 2016: On Judge Garland's behalf, the White House submitted the standard Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire typically requested by the committee of all federal judicial nominees.

• May 10, 2016: Judge Garland met with Republican senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Democratic senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii on May 10.

• May 8, 2016: Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), said to Chuck Todd of NBC News regarding Merrick Garland, "If we come to a point, I've said all along, where we're going to lose the election, or we lose the election in November, then we ought to approve him quickly ... Because I'm certain that he'll be more conservative than a Hillary Clinton nomination come January."

• May 5, 2016: In an interview with National Law Journal chief correspondent Marcia Coyle, retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens described Judge Garland as a "fine judge" and that President Obama "couldn’t have picked a better nominee".

• May 5, 2016: Nine former solicitors general sent a letter to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell calling Garland "supremely qualified" to be a Supreme Court justice.

• May 4, 2016: Leon Wolf, managing editor of RedState, a conservative-leaning blog, authored a post urging the Republicans in the Senate to confirm Merrick Garland.

“

Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee, this is not even a close call. There is absolutely no reason to drag this out any longer ... Republicans must know that there is absolutely no chance that we will win the White House in 2016 now. They must also know that we are likely to lose the Senate as well. So the choices, essentially, are to confirm Garland and have another bite at the apple in a decade, or watch as President Clinton nominates someone who is radically more leftist and 10-15 years younger, and we are in no position to stop it. In fact, if I were the Republicans, my main concern right now would be that Barack Obama would withdraw Garland’s nomination today. The fact that Merrick Garland still exists as an option right now is a gift that should not be squandered. The calculus has changed – confirm Merrick Garland before it is too late.

”

• April 30, 2016: In his weekly address, President Obama repeated his position that Senate Republicans should conduct hearings and hold a vote on the Garland nomination.

White House Weekly Address, Saturday, April 30, 2016.

• April 28, 2016: Judge Garland met with Democratic senators Gary Peters of Michigan and Ron Wyden of Oregon on April 28.

• April 27, 2016: Judge Garland met jointly with both Republican senators from Oklahoma, Jim Inhofe and James Lankford. Judge Garland also met with Republican senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Democratic senator Bill Nelson of Florida on April 27.

• April 21, 2016: Judge Garland met with Democratic senators Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Tim Kaine of Virginia as well as Republican senator John Hoeven of North Dakota on April 21.

• April 20, 2016: Judge Garland met with Republican senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina on April 20.

• April 19, 2016: Judge Garland met with Democratic senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan on April 19.

• April 14, 2016: Judge Garland met with five senators on April 14: Republicans Rob Portman of Ohio and Jeff Flake of Arizona as well as Democrats Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

• April 13, 2016: Judge Garland met with five senators on April 13: Republican Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Independent Angus King of Maine, and Democratic senators Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, and Mark Warner of Virginia.

• April 12, 2016: Judge Garland met with four senators on April 12: Cory Booker (D) of New Jersey, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa, Lisa Murkowski (R) of Alaska, and Pat Toomey (R) of Pennsylvania.

• April 9, 2016: On Fox News Sunday, President Obama announced his intention to keep the Garland nomination active through the remainder of his presidency and that he would "absolutely not" withdraw the nomination.

President Obama on Fox News Sunday, April 9, 2016.

• April 7, 2016: President Obama participated in an event at the University of Chicago Law School in which he spoke about the Supreme Court and the nomination of Judge Garland:

President Obama speaking at the University of Chicago on the Supreme Court

• April 7, 2016: In a reversal of his previous position, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina announced that he would meet with Judge Merrick Garland.

• April 7, 2016: Judge Garland met with four Democratic senators on April 7: Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Chris Coons of Delaware.

• April 6, 2016: Judge Garland met with three Democratic senators on April 6, 2016: Dick Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

• April 5, 2016: Chuck Grassley, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, gave a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate discussing the politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court.

• April 5, 2016: Judge Garland met with Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine and John Boozman of Arkansas as well as Democratic senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire today.

• April 4, 2016: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) announced that he would meet with Judge Garland "but only to tell him why he won’t get a full hearing before the Judiciary Committee nor have his Supreme Court nomination considered by the Senate this year."

• April 4, 2016: GOP senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire released a statement that she would meet with Judge Garland on April 13. The senator said, "I will meet with the president’s nominee out of courtesy and respect, and I also plan to explain my view that the people should have a voice in this important nomination through their votes in November."

• April 2, 2016: Republican senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska withdrew her support for Senate hearings on Judge Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court. The New York Times obtained an email from a Murkowski spokesperson which said, "Senator Murkowski respects the decision of the chair and members of the Judiciary Committee not to hold hearings on the nominee." The same report indicated that Murkowski would still meet with Judge Garland "to discuss cases that are important to her state."

• April 1, 2016: GOP senator Jerry Moran of Kansas reversed his position on hearings for Judge Garland in the Senate after speaking with Judiciary Committee Chair, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). In a statement obtained by National Review, a senior Moran aide said,

“

As Senator Moran has said, he is opposed to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. He has examined Judge Garland’s record and didn’t need hearings to conclude that the nominee’s judicial philosophy, disregard for Second Amendment Rights and sympathy for federal government bureaucracy make Garland unacceptable to serve on the Supreme Court. Senator Moran remains committed to preventing this president from putting another justice on the highest court in the land.

”

• April 1, 2016: The White House announced that Judge Garland would hold meetings with four senators on Tuesday, three senators on Wednesday, and four more senators on Thursday. Garland's Tuesday meetings include sit-downs with two Republican senators: Susan Collins of Maine and John Boozman of Arkansas, the second and third GOP senators who will meet with the judge.

• March 31, 2016: Politico reported that GOP senators Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania have been in communication with the White House regarding scheduling meetings with Judge Garland. The Politico report also stated that Judge Garland would meet with Democratic senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia on Tuesday, April 5. To date, Judge Garland has met with ten senators, nine Democrats and one Republican.

• March 30, 2016: Senate majority whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) discussed the Merrick Garland nomination in a radio interview.

John Cornyn on The Chad Hasty Show

• March 30, 2016: Judge Garland met with Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) on Wednesday, March 30.

• March 29, 2016: NBC News reported that 16 Republican senators have agreed to meet with Judge Garland, which is "over 25 percent of the GOP caucus" in the Senate.

• March 29, 2016: Judge Garland met with GOP Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. It was Garland's first scheduled meeting with a Republican senator. After the meeting, Sen. Kirk said, "We need rational, adult open-minded consideration of the constitutional process which Judge Garland is part of ... He's been duly nominated by the elected president of the United States to fill a vacancy which we know exists on the court, and we need open-minded, rational, responsible people to keep an open mind to make sure the process works."

• March 28, 2016: Republican senator Orrin Hatch of Utah authored an editorial] in The New York Times in which he stated, "Given that the American people have elected a president and a Senate majority with drastically different views on the nature of legitimate constitutional government — a split decision of sorts — it seems appropriate to let 2016 voters decide which of two very different paths the Supreme Court should take. But the American people can influence that course only if the Senate holds confirmation proceedings after the election season has ended. This should not be a controversial position."

• March 28, 2016: In an interview with ABC News affiliate KSFY-TV following a town hall meeting in Rock Rapids, Iowa, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said the following in response to why he has not yet scheduled nomination hearings for Judge Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court: "It's not fair to the country, it's not fair to the [S]enate, it's not fair to the nominee to put the person, in the words Biden used, in the cauldron of a presidential election year. When things are so highly politicized that, that takes priority over the consideration.

• During the same town hall event, the senator suggested that Senate Democrats could attempt to pass a discharge petition, which would remove the Garland nomination from the committee's jurisdiction and bring the nomination directly to the Senate floor:

“

I don’t think that there’s any way Republicans can keep from having a vote ... sometime between now and the election ... If [Republicans] think they’re going to avoid this issue entirely, under the rules of the Senate, it isn’t possible because of various motions that can be made.

”

• March 28, 2016: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) gave a speech in Madison, Wis., in which she addressed the Merrick Garland nomination process.

Hillary Clinton discusses the Supreme Court vacancy (Pt. 1)

Hillary Clinton discusses the Supreme Court vacancy (Pt. 2)

• March 28, 2016: Vice President Biden was featured in a White House video about the Garland nomination.

• March 28, 2016: Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), through a spokesperson, announced that she will meet with Judge Garland regarding his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

• March 28, 2016: Judge Garland held meetings with Senators Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Ben Cardin of Maryland on Monday.

• March 25, 2016: The White House confirmed to Politico that Judge Garland would have his first meeting with a Republican senator, Illinois Republican Mark Kirk, on Tuesday, March 29, 2016. As of March 25, 2016, Judge Garland has met with five senators: Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

• March 25, 2016: President Obama authored an editorial in The Baltimore Sun in which he said,

“

I understand that we're in the midst of an especially volatile political season. But at a time when our politics are so polarized, we should treat a process of this magnitude — the appointment of a Supreme Court justice — with the seriousness it deserves. I've done my constitutional duty. Now it's up to each senator to fulfill his or hers. All I'm asking is simply for the Senate to act fairly. To act with the level-headedness and foresight required in our exercise in self-government. And to give Judge Garland — by all accounts an outstanding individual, someone with more experience on the federal bench than any Supreme Court nominee in history — the respect he has earned. Give him a hearing. Give him a vote. To deny it would indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair. It would make it increasingly impossible for any president, Republican or Democrat, to carry out his or her constitutional function. To go down that path would jeopardize our system of justice, hurt our democracy and betray the vision of our founding.

”

• March 24, 2016: Miguel Estrada, whom George W. Bush nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit but whose nomination was withdrawn as a result of a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, predicted that Merrick Garland would be confirmed by the end of the year in an interview with Al Hunt of Bloomberg TV's With All Due Respect.

VP Joe Biden speaks at Georgetown Law School (via PBS Newshour YouTube feed)

• March 24, 2016: Vice President Joe Biden gave an address at Georgetown Law School regarding the Merrick Garland nomination:

• March 24, 2016: The Star Tribune reported that there are "13 Senate Republicans — including Florida’s Marco Rubio — who have said they are willing to meet with Garland or believe that he should get a hearing."

• March 23, 2016: Pennsylvania senator Pat Toomey (R), announced that he would meet with Judge Garland "out of courtesy to both Judge Garland and the president" but that he still opposed any action on replacing Justice Scalia until after the presidential election in 2016. The Hill reported that "Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), and Rob Portman (Ohio) each suggested they are open to meeting with the president's pick, if only to explain why they think the Senate shouldn't take up his nomination. None of the three senators — who, like Toomey, face difficult paths to re-election — have suggested they believe the Senate should move forward with his nomination."

• March 22, 2016: The Los Angeles Times reported that "a long and orchestrated campaign to reverse the GOP's blockade of Judge Merrick Garland" impacted events held by Republican senators in New Hampshire, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. According to the Times report, "Democrats are so sure in their strategy that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told Garland in their meeting last week that he would become a Supreme Court justice."

• March 21, 2016: The New York University Law Review Online launched The Merrick Garland Project, which aims "not to undertake a comprehensive review of Judge Garland’s entire judicial record, but rather to take a closer look at select opinions that we believe are representative of his judicial philosophy, with an eye towards opinions that are highly cited, clarify a previously unsettled area of the law, or are written for a divided court. We wish to make Judge Garland’s record more accessible, exploring not just his votes and holdings, but his legal reasoning. In doing so, we hope to be a valuable resource to attorneys, journalists, students, and anyone else with an interest in Judge Garland’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court and its potential implications."

• March 21, 2016: Speaking at a town hall meeting at the Gray County Courthouse in Cimarron, Kansas, Senator Jerry Moran (R) joined GOP colleagues Mark Kirk and Susan Collins in calling for Judge Garland to receive hearings in the Senate. "I would rather have you (constituents) complaining to me that I voted wrong on nominating somebody than saying I’m not doing my job ... I can’t imagine the president has or will nominate somebody that meets my criteria, but I have my job to do ... I think the process ought to go forward."

• March 20, 2016: Senate leadership and White House officials appeared on Sunday morning news shows to discuss the nomination:

Fox News Sunday

CNN's State of the Union

NBC's Meet the Press

• March 19, 2016: Giving the GOP weekly address, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina addressed the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court:

GOP Weekly Address, March 19, 2016

• March 19, 2016: During his weekly address, President Obama explained his nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court:

White House Weekly Address, March 19, 2016

• March 17, 2016: Judge Garland met with both Democratic leader Harry Reid and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy (D).

PBS News Hour

• March 16, 2016: On the floor of the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced his intention to refrain from scheduling a floor vote on Judge Garland: "It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent." The same day, a handful of GOP senators state that they will meet with Judge Garland.

Senator Mitch McConnell on the Supreme Court nomination (via PBS News Hour)

• March 16, 2016: President Obama announced Judge Garland as his nominee to succeed Justice Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.

• March 11, 2016: The Washington Post, citing sources, indicated that the President "wanted to make a decision quickly, and his announcement could come as early as next week."

• March 9, 2016: National Public Radio reported that Garland was among three finalists for the nomination and was being interviewed by President Obama. The other finalists identified were Judge Srinivasan and Judge Paul Watford of the Ninth Circuit Court.

• March 4, 2016: The New York Times reported that Garland was among a small number of candidates being vetted by the White House for a possible nomination. The other vetted candidates were Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit Court and Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

• March 3, 2016: A CNN/ORC poll claimed that 58 percent of respondents wanted to see the President nominate someone to the Court rather than leave the seat vacant until a new president takes office next year. 41 percent preferred the seat remain vacant.

• March 2, 2016: The New York Times reported that Iowa federal judge Jane Kelly was being vetted by the White House for a possible nomination to the Supreme Court. Kelly is a judge on the Eighth Circuit Court.

• March 1, 2016: President Obama invited Republican and Democratic leaders, as well as Vice President Joseph Biden, to the Oval Office for a meeting about the vacant Supreme Court seat. Democratic Leader Harry Reid described the meeting as "brief," while Chairman Grassley said, "Whether everybody in the meeting today wanted to admit it, we all know that considering a nomination in the middle of a heated presidential campaign is bad for the nominee, bad for the court, bad for the process, and ultimately bad for the nation."

• February 25, 2016: Some Senate Democrats held a live press conference on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Supreme Court vacancy:

Senate Democrats press conference at U.S. Supreme Court

• February 24, 2016: President Obama, writing on the website SCOTUSblog.com, outlined "spoiler-free insights" into his thought process regarding the person whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court: "A sterling record. A deep respect for the judiciary’s role. An understanding of the way the world really works. That’s what I’m considering as I fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court."

• February 24, 2016: The American Constitution Society organized a letter signed by 33 constitutional law scholars urging "the President to nominate as soon as reasonably possible an individual to fill the vacancy existing on the Court and the Senate to hold hearings and vote on the nominee."

• February 23, 2016: Every Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter to Senator Mitch McConnell indicating their "intention to exercise our constitutional authority to withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by this President to fill Justice Scalia's vacancy. Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people, this Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2017."

• February 22, 2016: Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made a statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate in which he discussed U.S. Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years:

Senator Chuck Grassley speaking on Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years.

• February 22, 2016: The Supreme Court sat for argument for the first time since the death of Justice Scalia. Prior to hearing argument in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc., v. United States (14-916), Chief Justice John Roberts issued a bench statement remembering his former colleague, "Justice Scalia devoted nearly 30 years of his life to this Court in service to the Country he so loved. He authored 282 majority opinions for the Court. He was also known, on occasion, to dissent. We remember his incisive intellect, his agile wit, and his captivating prose. But we cannot forget his irrepressible spirit. He was our man for all seasons, and we shall miss him beyond measure."

• February 17, 2016: A number of GOP senators, including Republican whip John Cornyn of Texas, refuse to rule out a committee hearing for any prospective Supreme Court nominee. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska supported a hearing for a potential nominee, but noted that "The question then becomes, we have a hearing on a nominee. But that doesn't necessarily mean that that ends up in a vote."

• February 16, 2016: At a press conference at the US-ASEAN conference in Rancho Mirage, California, President Obama spoke about the process to fill Justice Scalia's vacant seat on the Court:

“

The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now. When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the President of the United States is to nominate someone. The Senate is to consider that nomination, and either they disapprove of that nominee or that nominee is elevated to the Supreme Court. Historically, this has not been viewed as a question. There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off years -- that’s not in the constitutional text. I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there. There is more than enough time for the Senate to consider in a thoughtful way the record of a nominee that I present and to make a decision. And with respect to our process, we’re going to do the same thing that we did with respect to Justice Kagan’s nomination and Justice Sotomayor’s nomination. We’re going to find somebody who is has an outstanding legal mind, somebody who cares deeply about our democracy and cares about rule of law. There’s not going to be any particular position on a particular issue that determines whether or not I nominate them, but I’m going to present somebody who indisputably is qualified for the seat and any fair-minded person -- even somebody who disagreed with my politics -- would say would serve with honor and integrity on the Court. Now, part of the problem that we have here is, is we’ve almost gotten accustomed to how obstructionist the Senate has become when it comes to nominations. I’ve got 14 nominations that have been pending that were unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee -- so Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee all agreed that they were well-qualified for the position. And yet we can’t get a vote on those individuals. So in some ways, this argument is just an extension of what we’ve seen in the Senate, generally -- and not just on judicial nominees. The basic function of government requires that the President of the United States, in his or her duties, has a team of people -- Cabinet secretaries, assistant secretaries -- that can carry out the basic functions of government. It requires -- the Constitution requires that we appoint judges so that they can carry out their functions as a separate branch of government. And the fact that we’ve almost grown accustomed to a situation that is almost unprecedented, where every nomination is contested, everything is blocked regardless of how qualified the person is, even when there’s no ideological objection to them, certainly where there’s no disqualifying actions by the nominee that have surfaced -- the fact that it’s that hard, that we’re even discussing this, is I think a measure of how, unfortunately, the venom and rancor in Washington has prevented us from getting basic work done. This would be a good moment for us to rise above that. I understand the stakes. I understand the pressure that Republican senators are, undoubtedly, under. I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that what the issue here is, is that the Court is now divided on many issues; this would be a deciding vote. And there are a lot of Republican senators who are going to be under a lot of pressure from various special interests and various constituencies and many of their voters to not let any nominee go through, no matter who I nominate. But that’s not how the system is supposed to work. That’s not how our democracy is supposed to work. And I intend to nominate in due time a very well-qualified candidate. If we are following basic precedent, then that nominee will be presented before the committees; the vote will be taken; and ultimately, they’ll be confirmed. Justice Kennedy, when he was nominated by Ronald Reagan -- in Ronald Reagan’s last year in office, a vote was taken, and there were a whole lot of Democrats who I’m sure did not agree with Justice Kennedy on his position on a variety of issues -- but they did the right thing; they confirmed him. And if they voted against him, they certainly didn’t mount a filibuster to block a vote from even coming up. This is the Supreme Court. The highest court in the land. It’s the one court where we would expect elected officials to rise above day-to-day politics. And this will be the opportunity for senators to do their job. Your job doesn’t stop until you’re voted out or until your term expires. I intend to do my job between now and January 20th of 2017. I expect them to do their job as well.

”

• February 16, 2016: In an interview with Radio Iowa, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said the following regarding any hearing in his committee of a potential Supreme Court nominee:

“

I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decisions ... In other words, take it a step at a time ... This is a very serious position to fill and it should be filled and debated during the campaign and filled by either Hillary Clinton, Senator Sanders or whoever’s nominated by the Republicans.

”

• February 14, 2016: Numerous media outlets, including USA Today, The New York Times, Vox, and Politico identified Garland as a potential successor to Justice Scalia.

• February 13, 2016: Justice Antonin Scalia "was found dead of apparent natural causes" while visiting "the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa," Texas, according to the San Antonio-Express News. The U.S. Marshals Service notified U.S. District Judge Fred Biery of Scalia's death. Biery said, "I was told it was this morning. It happened on a ranch out near Marfa. As far as the details, I think it's pretty vague right now as to how. My reaction is it's very unfortunate. It's unfortunate with any death, and politically in the presidential cycle we're in, my educated guess is nothing will happen before the next president is elected."

Major Players in Garland nomination

President Barack Obama

The authority for Presidential nominations is located in the Appointments Clause of Article II, Section 2, which reads as follows:

“

and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law...

”

During remarks made in the Rose Garden, President Obama said of Judge Garland's nomination:

“

At a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comity are so often treated like they’re disposable -- this is precisely the time when we should play it straight, and treat the process of appointing a Supreme Court justice with the seriousness and care it deserves. Because our Supreme Court really is unique. It’s supposed to be above politics. It has to be. And it should stay that way. To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn’t even deserve a hearing, let alone an up or down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court, when two-thirds of Americans believe otherwise -- that would be unprecedented. To suggest that someone who has served his country with honor and dignity, with a distinguished track record of delivering justice for the American people, might be treated, as one Republican leader stated, as a political “piñata” -- that can’t be right.

”

​

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

As Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, it would fall to McConnell to schedule a confirmation vote of the full Senate for any federal judge. McConnell has indicated that the Senate will not consider the nomination of Judge Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“

The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy. It seems clear that President Obama made this nomination not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election.

”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley

As Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley has oversight over the process of reviewing and reporting on all federal judicial nominations. Senator Grassley released a statement on Judge Garland's nomination.

“

When they structured our nation, the founders placed trust in three separate but equal branches of government. Co-equal authorities are throughout the Constitution, including Article II, Section 2, where the power to nominate an individual to the Supreme Court is granted to the President and authority is given to the Senate to provide advice and consent. Nowhere in the Constitution does it describe how the Senate should either provide its consent or withhold its consent. Today the President has exercised his constitutional authority. A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination during a presidential election year, with millions of votes having been cast in highly charged contests. As Vice President Biden previously said, it’s a political cauldron to avoid. Judge Bork learned even after being unanimously confirmed for a circuit court judgeship, the confirmation process for the Supreme Court is unlike any other. It’s also important to remember the type of nominee President Obama said he’s seeking. He says his nominee will arrive at ‘just decisions and fair outcomes’ based on the application of ‘life experience’ to the ‘rapidly changing times.’ The so-called empathy standard is not an appropriate basis for selecting a Supreme Court nominee. A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice. Do we want a court that interprets the law, or do we want a court that acts as an unelected super legislature? This year is a tremendous opportunity for our country to have a sincere and honest debate about the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system of government.

”

Judge Merrick Garland

As the nominee, Judge Garland will meet with senators regarding his nomination to the Supreme Court. In remarks made upon his nomination, Judge Garland said:

“

Trust that justice will be done in our courts without prejudice or partisanship is what, in a large part, distinguishes this country from others. People must be confident that a judge's decisions are determined by the law and only the law. For a judge to be worthy of such trust, he or she must be faithful to the Constitution and to the statutes passed by the Congress. He or she must put aside his personal views or preferences and follow the law, not make it. Fidelity to the Constitution and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life and it is the hallmark of the kind of judge I have tried to be for the past 18 years. If the Senate sees fit to confirm me to the position for which I have been nominated today, I promise to continue on that course.

”

Recent news

This section links to a Google news search for the term "Supreme Court Nomination"

Supreme Court Nomination News Feed

See also

• Merrick Garland
• 2016 presidential candidates on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland
• U.S. Senators on the nomination of Merrick Garland
• Antonin Scalia
• Supreme Court of the United States
• History of the Supreme Court
• Supreme Court cases, October term 2016-2017
• What happens to this term's major SCOTUS cases in a 4-4 split?
• Impact of the 2016 election on the United States Supreme Court