U.S. Senators on the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court
- Justices
- 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
- Recent vacancies
 |
118th • 117th • 116th • 115th • 114th • 113th • 112th • 111th • 110th |
On February 13, 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia died while visiting the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa, Texas, according to the San Antonio Express-News.[1] Scalia was a member of the U.S. Supreme Court for three decades.[2]
On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama (D) announced Merrick Garland as his nominee to fill Justice Scalia's seat on the United States Supreme Court.[3] At the time of the nomination, Garland was chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He joined the court in 1997 after being nominated by former President Bill Clinton (D).[4]
In 2010, Garland was considered a front-runner for nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States following the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Elena Kagan was chosen instead.[5]
This page tracked notable tweets, public comments and statements made by prominent members of Congress about the nomination process and Chief Judge Garland to the Supreme Court. It does not cover reactions to President Biden's (D) nomination of Garland as U.S. Attorney General.
To find the comments of your senators, please click your state on the map below:
Alabama
Jeff Sessions (R)
Through a spokesman: "The Senate has long-since resolved to wait before considering any nominee ... Despite the dog and pony show from the White House, no nominee will receive a hearing, and Senator Sessions' focus is appropriately elsewhere at this time. The issue will be revisited in January."[6]
Richard Shelby (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"President Obama and I strongly disagree on which direction to take our nation, and I believe that we should do everything in our power to block him from further damaging the future of America. Rather than nominating an individual who will preserve the conservative legacy of the late Antonin Scalia, President Obama is attempting to solidify his liberal agenda by drastically changing the direction of the Court for decades to come. This critical decision should be made after the upcoming presidential election so that the American people have a voice. I am adamantly opposed to any Senate action on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland to the Supreme Court, and I urge my conservative colleagues to join me."[7]
Alaska
Lisa Murkowski (R)
Through a spokesperson, Sen. Murkowski indicated that she would meet with Judge Garland in April 2016 and discuss the following:[8]
| “ |
She plans to raise the recent Sturgeon decision and gauge Judge Garland’s understanding of the uniqueness of Alaska’s key statutes ... She is currently doing her due diligence on Judge Garland’s record and opinions over this state work period and will have more following that review that we would be happy to share following the meeting [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"Today the President exercised his constitutional authority to nominate an individual to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. However, given the timing of this vacancy, in the middle of a Presidential election and in an increasingly toxic political environment, I had urged the President to refrain from naming a nominee. I believe he should have left that task to the next administration. Vice President Joe Biden, during his time in the Senate, advised that consideration of a Supreme Court nominee should be put off until after the election is over, because the thoughtful consideration that a Supreme Court nominee deserves simply cannot occur at the height of a political season. I find a great deal of wisdom in those words, because in my judgment they accurately describe what is already happening with regard to this election-year nomination. Any nominee is likely to become a political football in the midst of this already contentious and divisive campaign season. This is not good for the nominee, it is not good for the court, and it is not good for the American people."[10]
Dan Sullivan (R)
In a March 27, 2016, piece in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, a spokesperson for Sen. Sullivan made the following comments regarding a potential meeting between the senator and Judge Garland:[8]
| “ |
We have informed the White House that there is no need for a meeting at this time ... Senator Sullivan is more than happy to meet with Judge Garland next year. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"The President has the constitutional authority to nominate and the U.S. Senate has the authority to advise and consent. The decision to withhold advancement of Mr. Garland’s nomination isn’t about the individual, it’s about the principle. Alaskans, like all Americans, are in the midst of an important national election. The next Supreme Court justice could fundamentally change the direction of the Court for years to come. Alaskans deserve to have a voice in that direction through their vote, and we will ensure that they have one."[11]
Arizona
Jeff Flake (R)
Senator Flake discussed the Supreme Court nomination on NBC's Meet the Press on May 8, 2016:[12]
Senator Flake released the following statement following his meeting with Judge Garland on April 14, 2016:[13]
| “ |
I enjoyed the meeting with Judge Garland. He is obviously a man of accomplishment and keen intellect. He is also kind and engaging. Because this nomination has the potential to so dramatically shift the balance of the court, I continue to believe that the Senate is fully justified in waiting until the presidential election before proceeding to fill the seat. [9] |
” |
Senator Flake gave the following interview to CBS This Morning on March 17, 2016, regarding the Merrick Garland nomination:[14]
"For those of us who are concerned about the direction of the court and wanting at least a more centrist figure than between him and somebody that President Clinton might nominate, I think the choice is clear — in a lame duck ... I meet with anybody and that would include him."[15]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "One would have to go back more than a century to find a scenario where a president’s nominee for the Supreme Court was confirmed by the opposition party in the Senate when the vacancy occurred during an election year. I'm not about to break new ground in the Senate, particularly when any nominee could so drastically shift the balance of the court."[16]
John McCain (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"This issue is not about any single nominee – it’s about the integrity of the Court. With less than a year left in a lame-duck presidency and the long-term ideological balance of the Supreme Court at stake, I believe the American people must have a voice in the direction of the Supreme Court by electing a new president. The last time the American people spoke, they elected a Republican majority to the Senate to act as a ‘check and balance’ on President Obama’s liberal agenda – a responsibility I cannot ignore. We must allow the people to play a role in selecting the next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."[17]
Arkansas
John Boozman (R)
Senator Boozman released the following statement after meeting with Judge Garland on April 5, 2016:[18]
| “ |
Americans deserve a voice on the future direction of the Supreme Court. I strongly disagree with President Obama's contention that the Senate must rubber-stamp his nominee in the final year of his presidency. However, I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable, which is why I accepted the request of the White House to meet with Judge Garland. During our meeting I conveyed to Judge Garland my position, which is that the next president should fill the vacancy. My position is firm. That means I will not advocate for hearings or a vote, nor will I support filling the vacancy with President Obama's pick after the election. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "The President has a Constitutional right to nominate a candidate to fill this vacancy, but the Senate has made it clear that we do not intend move forward on it. The Constitution clearly defines the roles of each branch and the President's ends with selecting a candidate for the vacancy.
For Senator Reid and his caucus to claim the Senate must vote on this nominee is not only a display of Constitutional ignorance, but highly hypocritical given the words and actions of Senate Democrats in previous election years and the precedent followed for decades in terms of considering Supreme Court vacancies during lame duck presidencies.
Our country is very split and we are in the midst of a highly contested presidential election. My colleagues and I are committed to giving the American people a voice in the direction the court will take for generations to come."[19]
Tom Cotton (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"In a few short months, we will have a new President and new Senators who can consider the next Justice with the full faith of the people. Why would we cut off the national debate on the next Justice? Why would we squelch the voice of the populace? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the make-up of the Supreme Court? There is no reason to do so. I respect President Obama's right to nominate someone to the Supreme Court. But the stakes are high and we cannot rush this decision. This nomination should not be considered by the Senate at this time."[20]
California
Barbara Boxer (D)
In a Facebook post, Senator Boxer said of her May 25, 2016, meeting with Judge Garland, "Today I had the honor of meeting with President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. I was truly impressed by his brilliant legal mind and his quiet pursuit of justice. He is an incredible #SCOTUS nominee and deserves hearings and a vote!"[21]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"I congratulate Chief Judge Merrick Garland on his nomination to the United States Supreme Court.
The President has picked an exceedingly well-qualified nominee - a former top federal prosecutor who currently serves as Chief Judge on the second most important court in the country.
He is an experienced and widely respected judge with a strong bipartisan record, having clerked for two judges appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and Judge Henry Friendly.
At the Justice Department, he proved his toughness by leading the investigation and successful prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombers and the Unabomber.
I look forward to hearing more about Judge Garland's views and record in the weeks ahead. I hope that Republican Senators - including some who previously praised Garland as a 'consensus nominee' - will now do their constitutional duty and give him the hearing and vote he deserves.
The President has done his job. Now it's time for Republicans in the Senate to do their job so that a fully functioning Supreme Court can ensure justice and fairness for the American people."[22]
Dianne Feinstein (D)
The senator made the following remarks in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 17, 2016:[23]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"Today, President Obama fulfilled his constitutional duty by nominating Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Now it’s time for the Senate to do its own job and fully and fairly consider this nominee.
"I don’t know of any judge who is more tried and tested than Merrick Garland, and his qualifications are impeccable.
"A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Judge Garland has served since 1997 on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In addition to clerking for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and famed Judge Henry Friendly, Judge Garland also has experience as partner at a prestigious law firm.
"But he left the biggest impression during his time at the Justice Department where he oversaw the prosecutions of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and Unabomber Ted Kaczynski. He proved to be a meticulous and fastidious investigator and has served the American people with distinction.
"It’s my belief that Judge Garland is a consensus candidate of the highest stature. In March 1997, Senator Hatch spoke in glowing terms during Judge Garland’s Appeals Court nomination.
Senator Hatch said, and I quote, 'Based solely on his qualifications, I support the nomination of Mr. Garland, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.'
He continued: 'To my knowledge, no one—absolutely no one—disputes the following: Merrick B. Garland is highly qualified to sit on the D.C. Circuit. His intelligence and his scholarship cannot be questioned.'
Senator Hatch added that he couldn’t think of a better candidate: 'I believe Mr. Garland is a fine nominee. I know him personally, I know of his integrity, I know of his legal ability, I know of his honesty, I know of his acumen, and he belongs on the court. I believe he is not only a fine nominee, but is as good as Republicans can expect from this administration. In fact, I would place him at the top of the list.'
To my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, I ask them to do their job. Give Judge Garland full and fair consideration. It’s your constitutional duty, and I believe the only responsible thing to do."[24]
Colorado
Michael Bennet (D)
Senator Bennet released the following statement after meeting with Judge Garland on April 14, 2016:[25]
| “ |
We had a very productive meeting that confirmed what I already know: Judge Garland is an intelligent and pragmatic jurist who is extraordinarily well-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Our job in the Senate is to learn about Judge Garland's record, conduct hearings, and vote to confirm or deny his nomination. Because he is thoughtful, thorough, and well-respected across the political spectrum, obstructing a fair process, much less refusing to meet with him, makes no sense. How we manage this duty to provide serious consideration and deliberation to a rare appointment to the nation's highest judicial office will determine whether we deserve the respect of Americans who rightly expect us to exhibit dignity, mutual respect, and wisdom on their behalf. [9] |
” |
In an interview published on KRDO.com in Colorado Springs, Colo., Senator Bennet said, "We should have a vote ... That's our job as senators ... I know him, I've worked with him, he's a fine judge ... I have not yet had my interview with him which I expect to do when I get back to Washington and then I'll reach a conclusion."[26]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"Judge Garland has an excellent reputation and is eminently qualified. I worked for and with him at the Justice Department and have a firsthand appreciation for his extraordinary legal skill and respect for the law.
The President has fulfilled his constitutional obligation by selecting a nominee to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Now, it is the Senate's constitutional responsibility to thoroughly vet Judge Garland through meetings, hearings, and a vote to confirm or deny his nomination. It is what Presidents and the Senate have done throughout our history.
This is not the time to play politics to satisfy our political bases. The Senate should do its job. How we manage our constitutional duty to provide serious consideration and deliberation to a rare appointment to the nation's highest judicial office will determine whether we deserve the respect of Americans who rightly expect us to exhibit dignity, mutual respect, and wisdom on their behalf."[27]
Cory Gardner (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"We stand at a pivotal point in our nation’s history. The Obama Administration continues to use the judicial and regulatory systems to push through its legislative agenda, shifting the balance of power that our Founders established ... That is why the next president of the United States should have the opportunity to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. In 1992, even then-Senator Joe Biden stated the Senate should not hold confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court nominee until after that year’s presidential election. Our next election is too soon and the stakes are too high; the American people deserve a role in this process as the next Supreme Court Justice will influence the direction of this country for years to come."[28]
Connecticut
Richard Blumenthal (D)
Senator Blumenthal made the following remarks after meeting with Judge Garland on April 7, 2016:[29]
Senator Blumenthal released the following statement after meeting with Judge Merrick Garland on April 7, 2016:[30]
| “ |
I have known Merrick Garland for many years, and I deeply admire him as an incredibly scholarly and smart jurist, a dedicated and effective prosecutor, and a decent and good man. I hope the American people have an opportunity to see and hear Judge Garland as I did today, because there will be no question that he deserves a hearing and vote. Once the American people know Judge Garland, I believe they will conclude he is impeccably well qualified to be a justice on the United States Supreme Court. I regret that he and the judiciary have been dragged into the mud and muck of partisan politics. His treatment demeans our judiciary and the United States Supreme Court and endangers the rule of law. Judge Garland has dedicated his life to the rule of law and the effective and fair enforcement of law, and that is the kind of person we need on the Supreme Court. I will fight as long and hard as I can to make sure that Merrick Garland receives a hearing and a vote, and I believe he will be confirmed if he is given that opportunity. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "Chief Judge Merrick Garland is preeminently qualified for consideration – clearly meriting a hearing and vote. In his Rose Garden announcement – an inspiring occasion – President Obama cogently and convincingly stated Judge Garland’s credentials. Now the Senate must do its job. There should be no rubber stamp for any nominee. I have known Judge Garland personally for many years, and I intend to review closely his qualifications, past opinions and judicial record. Merrick Garland has been an extraordinary judge, prosecutor and public servant, and indisputably President Obama has taken seriously his constitutional responsibility.
Now that the President has done his job, Senate Republicans must do theirs. If they deny Judge Garland meetings, hearings, consideration, and a vote, they will engage in obstructionism unprecedented in American history. We should strive to insulate the Court from partisan politics, not pollute the judiciary with the same partisan gridlock and bickering that infect Congress. The Republican leadership should do the right thing, fully consider Judge Garland’s nomination and spare the Court and the country the significant, unnecessary damage their obstructionism would cause."[31]
Christopher Murphy (D)
Senator Murphy released the following statement on May 18, 2016, after meeting with Judge Garland:[32]
| “ |
I just wrapped up a meeting of just short of an hour with Judge Merrick Garland. I was very impressed by him, I was very impressed by our conversation. I can report to my Republican colleagues that he doesn’t bite, that there’s nothing to be afraid of, and that they should take a meeting with him. Further, they should schedule a hearing so that the entire country and the entire Congress can see what a qualified choice Merrick Garland is for the Supreme Court ... Today certainly confirmed my belief that he’s a smart choice and would be a great Supreme Court Justice. There’s just no justification for Republicans continuing to block this nomination. This is absolutely unprecedented – never before in the history of the United States has a Congress shown this level of disrespect to a president or to a nominee. I think that this has really dangerous precedential effects for the future ... Republicans need to do their job. They need to call a Judiciary Committee hearing as soon as possible. And my meeting with Merrick Garland certainly confirmed to me that he will do very well in that hearing. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "The president fulfilled his constitutional obligation today, now the Senate must fulfill ours. When each one of us took the oath of office, we swore to support and defend the Constitution and to faithfully discharge the duties of a Senator. If Senate Republicans refuse to consider the president’s nominee, they will be willingly violating the spirit of that sworn oath. They will be dragging the Supreme Court down into the political muck and compromising the independence and effectiveness of the nation's highest court.
Providing advice and consent for Supreme Court nominees is a duty we must all take seriously. This responsibility must exist above the political fray. I applaud President Obama for doing his job and putting forth an experienced jurist for consideration. Over the coming weeks, I will study Mr. Garland’s qualifications and judicial philosophy to determine whether or not he will earn my support for his confirmation to the bench."[33]
Delaware
Tom Carper (D)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"The president has done his job, and now it’s time that we do ours. With his nomination of Merrick Garland, President Obama has presented the Senate with a respected jurist that has been confirmed by this body with a strong bipartisan vote once before. He has served this country well on the federal bench for nearly two decades, including the past three years as Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit. Judge Garland has a reputation as a consensus builder—an important quality for any Supreme Court Justice, but it’s particularly important at a time when the Court and our country remains divided on too many issues. I look forward meeting Judge Garland in the coming weeks, and carefully reviewing his nomination.
I am disappointed by the insistence of some of my Republican colleagues that we should not replace the Supreme Court vacancy until a new President is sworn in. This is unprecedented in our nation’s history. Each of us has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution – some of us many times over – and any abdication of this duty is a failure to serve the American people as we’ve been elected to do. The right and just way to proceed is to begin consideration of Judge Garland’s nomination right away, first in committee and then on the Senate floor. Each of us has a duty to cast our vote, and we should be given the opportunity to uphold it.
As with many issues, I believe we should look to the example set in my home state of Delaware when considering judicial nominations. Before coming to the Senate, I was privileged to serve as Governor of Delaware. In that role, I nominated dozens of men and women to serve as judges in our courts – including Delaware’s Supreme Court, Court of Chancery, Superior Court, and Family Court. During my eight years as governor, the state legislature never failed to consider a single nomination. Not one. Our state Senate did its job. They handled nominations thoughtfully and promptly – all nominations were given up or down votes. The idea of allowing a vacancy on any court – much less our highest court – for over a year would never pass muster in Delaware, nor should it in Washington."[34]
Christopher Coons (D)
Senator Coons released the following statement after meeting with Judge Merrick Garland on April 7, 2016:[35]
| “ |
I’m very encouraged by my meeting with Chief Judge Merrick Garland. In addition to truly impressive intellect and compelling judicial experience, our conversation revealed a person of deep sensitivity, good judgment, and strong character. I am still reviewing his judicial record and would welcome more time with him, and I know that many of my colleagues have remaining questions. That’s why I believe it is so critical that the Judiciary Committee hold hearings, which would give Senators of both parties -- and the American people -- an opportunity to fully examine Judge Garland’s judicial record and philosophy. I suspect that hearings would confirm my instinct that Judge Garland is a very highly capable candidate, a devoted public servant, and someone eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. I’m hopeful that every Senator will have the respect and decency to meet with Judge Garland in person, and if they do, I’m confident that his qualifications and character will overpower the obstructionism that has greeted his nomination. I appreciate the Judge’s time today, and I look forward to continuing to review his record closely. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "In Judge Merrick B. Garland, the President has nominated a candidate whose judicial experience and previous Senate confirmation suggest someone eminently qualified for consideration for the Supreme Court. Despite that, every nomination to our nation’s highest court deserves close scrutiny, and I look forward to diving deeply into Judge Garland’s qualifications and background and, of course, meeting with him in person — a courtesy I urge every Senator to extend.
With Judge Garland’s nomination, President Obama has fulfilled one of his most important constitutional responsibilities. Now, all one hundred members of the Senate must do our jobs by providing advice and consent on the President’s nominee. The Senate has a valuable opportunity to show the American people — and the world — that even amidst a divisive presidential campaign, our democratic system still works. We cannot allow year-long Supreme Court vacancies to become the new normal. In the months to come, how the Senate conducts itself will set a precedent for future vacancies — and send a strong signal about whether our constitutional order can still function."[36]
Senator Coons spoke from the Senate floor regarding the Supreme Court nomination process:[37]
Florida
Bill Nelson (D)
Senator Nelson was quoted following his meeting with Judge Garland on April 27, 2016:[38]
| “ |
Judge Garland is obviously qualified and should be confirmed as soon as possible. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court and I take that responsibility very seriously. Today, the president nominated Judge Merrick Garland to serve on our nation’s highest court and I hope that the Senate is given a chance to fully consider this nominee."[39]
Marco Rubio (R)
Through a spokesman, Senator Rubio provided the following regarding a potential Capitol Hill meeting with Judge Garland, "Senator Rubio will not be meeting with Judge Garland. He doesn’t believe the Senate should move on this nomination in the president’s final year, he wouldn’t support him, neither of these positions will change, and he sees no point in a meeting."[40]
Senator Rubio offered the following statement regarding the Supreme Court in a March 17, 2016, interview:[41]
Georgia
Johnny Isakson (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"As U.S. senators, we have the Constitutional obligation of advice and consent to the president’s nominations. I take this role very seriously because an appointment to the Supreme Court has a significant and lasting impact on the future of the Court and on our nation. The Constitution gives the responsibility of Supreme Court appointments to two branches of government, not just one. As a senator who has the duty of advice and consent, I believe the American people should have a voice in this process by allowing the next president to select and the next Senate to confirm Justice Scalia’s replacement.
I agree with what Vice President Biden said when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee: 'It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way - and it is - action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me we will be in deep trouble as an institution.'"[42]
David Perdue (R)
Senator Purdue made the following statement from the Senate floor on September 7, 2016, about the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court:[43]
Senator Perdue made the following statement about the Supreme Court nomination from the Senate floor on March 17, 2016:[44]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "The Constitution is clear: the President shall nominate judges to the Supreme Court, but the power to grant, or withhold, consent of such nominees rests exclusively with the United States Senate. What’s at stake here is the balance of our nation's highest court and the direction of our country for decades. I remain firm in my decision to exercise my Constitutional authority and withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by President Obama."[45]
Hawaii
Mazie Hirono (D)
Senator Hirono made the following comments after her meeting with Judge Garland on May 18, 2016:[46]
| “ |
Judge Garland’s character and record of judicial service are impressive, and Americans deserve to hear from him in a public Judiciary Committee hearing ... In the Senate’s history of holding public confirmation hearings, the majority party has never before denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing and vote. It’s been more than two months since the President did his job by nominating Judge Garland, and it’s far past time for my Republican colleagues to do their job by holding a hearing and vote on the nomination. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "It is unprecedented to announce unilaterally that no part of advice and consent will occur until after an election ... There is a law enacted nearly 150 years ago that says that the Supreme Court shall consist of nine justices, which also presumes that when a vacancy occurs, the President will nominate a replacement and the Senate will provide advice and consent. In my view, this law is violated when Senate Republicans say that it’s ok to leave a vacancy unfilled for over a year."[47]
Brian Schatz (D)
Senator Schatz released the following statement on May 10, 2016, after meeting with Judge Garland:[48]
| “ |
Chief Judge Garland and I had a productive discussion about his record and approach to the law, and it is clear to me that he is a well-qualified candidate for the Supreme Court. While I was glad to hear from him personally, the American people deserve to hear from him too ... We also now have Chief Judge Garland’s completed Senate Judiciary Questionnaire which I will be carefully reviewing. These documents hold key information on his judicial philosophy, opinions, and experience. Every member of the Senate should read it. Now that we have these documents, it’s time for Senate Republicans to do their job, take the next step in the process, and give Chief Judge Garland a fair and timely hearing and vote. [9] |
” |
Senator Schatz gave the following statement before the U.S. Supreme Court building on March 17, 2016:[49]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland has the legal expertise, independent mind, and extensive experience as a former top official in the Justice Department and as the current Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that would make him an excellent addition to the Supreme Court. Chief Judge Garland is widely respected by legal experts from across the political spectrum and has a real shot at earning bipartisan support in the Senate. It’s time to end the political gamesmanship and do the job that the American people elected us to do. The president has nominated a well-qualified candidate for the Supreme Court; we now must get back to the business of governing, fulfill our constitutional obligation, and restore the Supreme Court to its full strength. I look forward to an in-depth review of the nominee’s qualifications and a fair hearing and vote in the Senate."[50]
Idaho
Mike Crapo (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"The Constitution gives the President the right to make nominations to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. As part of its role in this process, the Senate may, at its discretion, withhold consent. The next Supreme Court justice will make decisions that affect every American and shape our nation’s legal landscape for decades. Therefore, the current Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by an individual nominated by the next President of the United States."[51]
James Risch (R)
"Given his record, I wouldn’t vote for that guy under any circumstances."[52]
Illinois
Dick Durbin (D)
Senator Durbin took to the floor of the U.S. Senate on September 14, 2016, to discuss the Merrick Garland nomination:[53]
Senator Durbin made the following statements to reporters after his meeting with Judge Garland:[54]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"I applaud President Obama’s decision to nominate Chief Judge Merrick Garland.
Judge Garland is an outstanding attorney and jurist with an admirable list of accomplishments. Born in Chicago and raised in Lincolnwood, Illinois, he received undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard and clerked for Judge Henry J. Friendly on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and for Justice William Brennan on the Supreme Court. He served with distinction as a federal prosecutor and in several supervisory roles in the U.S. Department of Justice, and he also worked in private practice before he was confirmed in 1997 in a bipartisan Senate vote to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He became Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit in 2013.
The President has fulfilled his constitutional responsibility and now the U.S. Senate must do the same. No Senate has ever denied a hearing to a Presidential nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. In the name of fairness and our Constitution, the Senate Republican majority must do its job and give Judge Garland a public hearing and a timely vote."[55]
Mark Kirk (R)
After a Capitol Hill meeting with Judge Garland, Senator Kirk said:
"I think when you just say, 'I'm not going to meet with him at all,' that's too closed-minded. We need open-minded, rational, responsible people to keep an open mind to make sure the process works ... Obviously, I would consider voting for him."[56]
In response to a radio show host's statement that the Senate should conduct an up or down vote on Garland: "Right, it's just man up and cast a vote. The tough thing about these senatorial jobs is you get yes or no votes, your whole job is to either say yes or no and explain why."[57]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "When I climbed the 42 steps of the U.S. Capitol and returned to the Senate following my stroke, I reaffirmed my commitment to represent the people of Illinois in an independent and thoughtful manner, free from the partisanship and political rancor that too often consumes Washington. The Senate’s constitutionally defined role to provide advice and consent is as important as the president’s role in proposing a nominee, and I will assess Judge Merrick Garland based on his record and qualifications."[58]
Indiana
Dan Coats (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"One of the most important responsibilities of a United States Senator is to provide 'advice and consent’ on the president’s judicial nominees. I take seriously my responsibility to determine the best way to offer my 'advice and consent’ regarding nominations to our nation’s highest court.
The current vacancy has arisen in the middle of a highly contentious presidential election process and filling this vacancy will fundamentally alter the Supreme Court’s direction for generations. These are rare circumstances, as the last time the Senate confirmed a nominee in a similar situation was 128 years ago.
Based on these unique circumstances and the precedent established by Democratic leadership including Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, the right thing to do is to give the American people a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. The next president, with input from voters in the upcoming election, should fill the current Supreme Court vacancy."
The last time a Supreme Court justice was nominated to the Court in a presidential election year and confirmed by a Senate controlled by the opposing party was 1888, when President Grover Cleveland nominated Justice Melville Fuller to be Chief Justice.
In 1992, then-Senator Joe Biden, said, "Can our Supreme Court nomination and confirmation processes, so racked by discord and bitterness, be repaired in a Presidential election year? History teaches us that this is extremely unlikely. It is my view that if the President…presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over…President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
In 2005, Senator Harry Reid said, "The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote."
In 2007, Senator Chuck Schumer said, "We should reverse the presumption of confirmation [for justices]. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. …[W]ith respect to the Supreme Court, at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances."[59]
Joe Donnelly (D)
Senator Donnelly met with Judge Garland on March 28, 2016. The senator was quoted in a statement obtained by the Indianapolis Star after that meeting, "Part of my job as a senator is to meet with and thoroughly consider judicial nominees ... Judge Garland and I had a substantive conversation ... I was impressed with his deep knowledge of the law and his commitment to public service and our country."[60]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"I will carefully review and consider the qualifications of Judge Garland. As I have said, we were elected as Senators to do a job for our nation, and that job includes considering, debating, and voting on nominees to the Supreme Court. We should do the job we were elected to do."[61]
Senator Donnelly was asked to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy in a March 2016 interview:[62]
Iowa
Joni Ernst (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"In the midst of a critical election, the American people deserve to have a say in this important decision that will impact the course of our country for years to come.
This is not about any particular nominee; rather this is about giving the American people a voice. Folks are frustrated with Washington, and are fed up with President Obama’s failed policies and endless power grabs. We saw this frustration embodied in 2014 when voters made their voices heard and elected a Republican majority in the Senate.
My Democratic colleagues have noted in previous years that nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the Senate must vote on the president’s nominee to the Supreme Court. I support Senator Grassley’s decision to exercise the Senate’s constitutional authority to withhold consent to a Supreme Court nomination until the next president is sworn in.
We must wait to see what the people say this November, and then our next president will put forward a nominee."[63]
Chuck Grassley (R); Chair, Senate Judiciary Cmte.
On April 7, 2016, Sen. Grassley reaffirmed his commitment to refrain from holding hearings on the Garland nomination:[64]
| “ |
When I make a decision on sound principle, I am not about to flip-flop because the left has organized what they call a pressure campaign ... The so-called pressure being applied to me now is nothing, it's absolutely nothing compared to what I have withstood from heavy handed White House political operations in the past ... Our side knows and our side believes that what we are doing is right ... And when that's the case, it's not hard to withstand the outrage or the pressure that they've manufactured. [9] |
” |
In an interview with ABC News affiliate KSFY-TV following a town hall meeting in Rock Rapids, Iowa, Senator Grassley provided the following in response to why he has not yet scheduled nomination hearings for Judge Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court:[65]
| “ |
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. [9] |
” |
Senator Grassley gave a statement regarding Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years on February 22, 2016:[66][67]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland 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."[68]
Kansas
Jerry Moran (R)
Speaking to a group of constituents at the Gray County Courthouse on March 21, 2016, Senator Moran said, "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."[69]
"Americans are already aware the Senate will not hold hearings or consider any Supreme Court nominee for the remainder of the year ... It is difficult to imagine a path toward confirmation until a new president takes office."[70]
Pat Roberts (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"By nominating a replacement for Justice Scalia, President Obama is attempting to deny the American people a voice on the next Supreme Court justice. The next justice will have an effect on the courts for decades to come and should not be rushed through by a lame-duck president during an election year. This is not about the nominee, it is about giving the American people and the next president a role in selecting the next Supreme Court justice."[71]
Kentucky
Mitch McConnell (R); Senate Majority Leader
Senator McConnell was quoted in an April 9, 2016, report discussing the Senate's process toward the Merrick Garland nomination:[72]
| “ |
We know the Democrats, if the shoe were on the other foot, they would not be confirming a Republican president’s nomination for the Supreme Court in the middle of a presidential election year. We think the American people ought to decide this. We’re not going to move on this nomination. We’re not going to have hearings. We’re not going to have votes on it ... Whoever the next president is will get to make this nomination. Look, it’s been 80 years since a vacancy created in a presidential election year was filled. You have to go back to 1888. Grover Cleveland was in the White House the last time when a vacancy was created in a presidential year. The Senate controlled by the party opposite the president filled the vacancy. Not going to happen and it’s not going to cost a single Republican candidate for the Senate any votes at all. [9] |
” |
On March 16, 2016, Senator McConnell was interviewed on Fox News regarding the nomination of Merrick Garland:[73]
Senator McConnell gave a speech on the Senate floor on March 16, 2016, in which he stated:
| “ |
The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction. 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. [9] |
” |
Senator McConnell's full speech can be found here.[74]
Rand Paul (R)
"It’s going to be very, very, very difficult to get me to vote for a presidential nomination from this president ... I will look at it if it comes down, but my threshold for voting for somebody is going to be very, very high."[75]
Louisiana
Bill Cassidy (R)
"The president’s nominees have pushed our country to the left by supporting the president’s agenda ... I don’t support the president’s agenda. I don’t support the president’s nominees."[76]
David Vitter (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"Rather than have an insider’s political tug-of-war between the President and the Senate over a Supreme Court nomination, the American people should decide through this year’s election. So I'll be doing everything I can to give the American people a voice,” said Vitter. “The President is well within his constitutional authority to name a nominee – and the Senate is well within our constitutional authority to not hold hearings or a vote. President Obama has less than a year left, but a Supreme Court Justice will impact our country for decades, and this is something we shouldn’t take lightly."[77]
Senator Vitter was interviewed on the Fox Business Network about the Supreme Court vacancy:[78]
Maine
Susan Collins (R)
Senator Collins released a statement after meeting with Judge Garland on April 5, 2016:[79]
| “ |
Considering a Supreme Court nominee is one of the Senate’s most important constitutional responsibilities. During our lengthy discussion this morning, Chief Judge Garland and I discussed a wide variety of issues, ranging from executive overreach and the separation of powers, to Second Amendment cases, to his judicial philosophy. Judge Garland gave thorough, impressive responses to all of my questions, and I found him to be well informed, thoughtful, and extraordinarily bright. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have always found that whether its legislation, nominations, or treaties, we are best served by following the regular order. That is why I have called for the Senate to proceed to the next step by holding public hearings. My meeting today with Judge Garland left me more convinced than ever that the process should proceed. Public hearings before the Judiciary Committee would allow that the issues that we explored in my office today to be further reviewed and analyzed by the Senate. [9] |
” |
Senator Collins gave an interview to NBC News regarding the Merrick Garland nomination in which she urged her Senate GOP colleagues to meet with Judge Garland:[80]
In an interview with Maine Public Broadcasting Network's Maine Calling program, Senator Collins said that some of her GOP colleagues' refusal to meet with Garland was "not fair and not right. The only way that the Senate can reach reasonable and informed decisions on nominees to the highest court in the land is for us follow the regular process ... And that means having these individual one-on-one meetings, and then also the Judiciary Committee, in my view, should hold the kind of in-depth hearings that it has traditionally held."[81]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "As I begin the process of evaluating this nomination, I will be examining Chief Judge Garland’s judicial record, as well as other relevant materials. When deciding whether to support a nominee, I consider the individual’s intellect, integrity, qualifications, experience, temperament, and respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. This is the approach I have taken with every judicial nominee who has come before me throughout my service in the Senate, and that is the process that I will follow with this nomination as well.
Judge Garland is a capable and accomplished jurist. The White House has requested that I meet with him, and I look forward to doing so, as has been my practice with all Supreme Court nominees."[82]
Angus King (I)
Senator King released the following statement following his April 13, 2016, meeting with Judge Garland:[83]
| “ |
I strongly believe the Senate has a Constitutional obligation to consider nominations to the Supreme Court, and I take that responsibility very seriously. Judge Garland and I had a very thoughtful and productive discussion that helped me better understand his judicial philosophy and his temperament, and that just simply helped me get to know him better as a person. We discussed a wide variety of issues, including regulatory overreach, executive authority, the Second Amendment, the politicization of the Supreme Court, and the importance of consensus-building. I was impressed by Judge Garland’s answers, the depth and breadth of his knowledge, his measured demeanor, and his respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, and precedent. He is very clearly an exceedingly intelligent, experienced, and well-informed man. And I found him to be what I call a ‘small c conservative’, meaning that he doesn’t consider his role to be one of an activist, and that was reassuring. The meeting also reaffirmed my strong belief that his nomination should receive full, fair, and open consideration from the Senate. Judge Garland has met with several senators and will be meeting with more today, and it occurred to me what’s really going on here is a slow-motion hearing without the public’s ability to participate and observe, which I think is too bad. I think what we ought to be doing is letting the public see Judge Garland, hear him answer questions, get an idea of his judicial philosophy, who he is, what his temperament and personality are, and that’s why I think a hearing would be so profitable. At the end of it all, Judge Garland and I also discussed history, the founding of this country, and what an extraordinary moment in time it was when our forefathers came together to create an amazing concept of government that has persisted to this day. When I was a kid, we referred to it as the ‘American experiment’ and to this very day it’s still an experiment. In the sweep of history, what we possess in America is unlike anything else – but it’s not self-executing. Democracy is not self-executing. It takes thoughtful, serious, capable, and responsible people with the temperament of quiet leadership to move this country forward. I hope we can summon that leadership to do the right thing for the American people and for the country and move this nomination forward. [9] |
” |
Senator King made the following statement from the Senate floor in advance of the Merrick Garland nomination:[84]
Maryland
Ben Cardin (R)
After a March 28, 2016, meeting with Judge Garland, Senator Cardin said: "He’s a very, very impressive individual ... I want his nomination considered this Congress. I want there to be a hearing, and a vote."[85]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "President Obama has fulfilled his constitutional responsibility by nominating Chief Judge Merrick Garland, a Marylander, to fill the vacancy left by the sudden death of Justice Scalia. The president moved forward in a deliberate and timely manner and it is now necessary for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to consider the nomination through a fair hearing and a thoughtful floor debate before a timely vote of the full Senate. Justice Scalia would expect nothing less than for the President and the Congress to follow the letter and spirit of the Constitution, our nation’s most fundamental legal document. The United States Supreme Court affects the lives of every American and they deserve to have a Supreme Court that is fully operational.
I was on hand at the White House to witness the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland, a Marylander, to become the next Supreme Court Justice. He is an eminently qualified pick to replace Justice Scalia. I look forward to Chief Judge Garland’s confirmation hearings so that I, and the American public, can learn even more about him. I hope Senate Republicans will not deny the American people that basic courtesy. Chief Judge Garland has had an impressive career. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Brennan, practiced in the private sector, served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division in the Department of Justice. He was confirmed a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a strong bipartisan manner. Chief Judge Garland’s experience in prosecuting both Theodore Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh add another layer of qualification to his already strong resume. His appointment would ensure that the highest court in the land remains to be filled with those who possess an unassailable commitment to justice.
The American people twice elected President Obama to four-year terms in office; their voices have been heard very clearly. This position and the Supreme Court are too important to fall victim to mindless partisan politics. History has shown that when the roles were reversed and Democrats held the majority in the Senate, Supreme Court and judicial nominees for Republican presidents were given hearings and up-or-down votes regardless of when the vacancies occurred. Justice Kennedy was confirmed for the Supreme Court in the last year of President Ronald Reagan’s final term in 1988. And the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed numerous judicial nominees of President George W. Bush throughout his final year in office, including nearly a dozen judges in September 2008, just weeks before the election of President Obama."[86]
Barbara Mikulski (D)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"U.S. President Barack Obama fulfilled his Constitutional duty today in submitting to the Senate his nominee to the Supreme Court, well-respected D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Merrick Garland.
Now, the Senate must perform its duty and do our jobs as mandated by the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to do their jobs by following the Constitution and living up to the Constitution. So let’s open our doors to meet with his nominee. Let’s hold a hearing. Finally, let’s hold a vote on the Senate floor.
I plan to do the job that I was elected to do by the people of Maryland. I am ready to do my job and follow the process. When evaluating Supreme Court nominees, I have always used three criteria: are they competent and appropriately credentialed? Do they possess the highest personal and professional integrity? Will they protect and preserve the core Constitutional values and guarantees central to our system of government, specifically the freedoms of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and the right to privacy?
Merrick Garland has served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals since 1997, and as Chief Judge since 2013. His career has been consistent and unfailing in his public service. Chief Judge Garland previously served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, prosecuting the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, and supervising the Unabomber case. He also served as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and was a partner at Arnold & Porter, one of the largest law firms in the world. He has served with honor, and a sense of duty to his country.
I look forward to meeting Chief Judge Garland and getting to know him better. I will evaluate his credentials and render an independent judgement. My vote will reflect my commitment to core Constitutional principles.
President Obama is our president until January 20, 2017. The Constitution states his job is to provide nominees to the Senate to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not give a time limit on being President, where once you reach a certain point, you can no longer do your job. The word ‘delay’ does not appear in the Constitution. It says the President has four full years.
So I say to my Senate colleagues, let’s be accountable by our deeds and not avoid our Constitutional duty."[87]
Massachusetts
Ed Markey (D)
Senator Markey released the following statement after meeting with Judge Garland on May 11, 2016:[88]
| “ |
Chief Judge Merrick Garland is an eminently qualified nominee for the Supreme Court, and it is the Senate’s obligation to consider and vote on his nomination without further delay. My discussions today with Judge Garland made clear that he has dedicated his career to upholding our Constitution and that he will advance the rule of law in our nation on the Supreme Court. Judge Garland would continue a rich and long tradition of Massachusetts-educated justices with the intellect and judgment to serve on our top court. Republicans may try to broker their convention, but they can’t broker our Constitution. President Obama has fulfilled his Constitutional obligation and sent the Senate an exceedingly qualified nominee in Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill this vacancy on the high court. But Senate Republicans are engaged in the worst kind of partisan obstruction by ignoring their Constitutional duty to act on Judge Garland’s nomination. The United States Constitution is a remarkable document. Let us respect it, not run from it. It is time for Senate Republicans to fulfill their constitutional obligations and have a hearing and vote on Judge Garland’s nomination. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"With his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, President Obama has fulfilled his constitutional obligation to nominate a judge to fill the vacancy caused by the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia. It is now time for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional obligation to provide its ‘Advice and Consent’ on the nomination. That means the Senate Judiciary Committee must hold a hearing on Judge Garland’s nomination, and consistent with long-standing Senate practice, send that nomination to the Senate floor for a vote. There is no magic asterisk in the Constitution, no fine print, that says ‘not in an election year’ or ‘not during the last year of an opposition President’s term in office.’ Senate Republicans’ promise to block consideration of this nominee now leaves us with two vacancies, one on the Supreme Court and the other in their judgment and respect for the Constitution. If Senate Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Judge Garland’s nomination, it will constitute an historic failure to do their job. Senate Republicans must do their job and give the American people the fully functioning Supreme Court to which they are entitled under the Constitution."[89]
Elizabeth Warren (D)
At an April 2016 Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee meeting, Senator Warren offered the following regarding the Merrick Garland nomination:[90]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"For decades, Chief Judge Merrick Garland has served his country with distinction - as a federal prosecutor, a senior official at the Department of Justice, and a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Along the way, he has won praise from Democratic and Republican Senators, liberals and conservatives - even the Bush-appointed Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
The confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is one of the most solemn tasks that our government performs. President Obama has done his job - selecting a nominee and sending that nominee to the Senate - and it's time for the Senate to do its job.
I look forward to meeting with Chief Judge Garland, reviewing his record closely, coming to a decision on his nomination, and then voting. It is my hope that all Senators will show the American people that they respect the President of the United States, the Constitution, and Chief Judge Garland enough to do the same."[91]
Michigan
Gary Peters (D)
Senator Peters released the following statement following his April 28, 2016, meeting with Judge Garland:[92]
| “ |
I’m pleased I had the opportunity to meet with Chief Judge Merrick Garland today, and I am impressed by his distinguished credentials and his thoughtful demeanor. His extensive judicial experience makes him a highly accomplished nominee for the United States Supreme Court, who should be given full consideration. While I appreciated the opportunity to speak with Chief Judge Garland, these individual meetings cannot and should not replace the judicial hearing process. Our nation’s highest court plays too critical of a role in our democracy for this vacancy to remain unfilled for an extended period of time. Just as President Obama has a constitutional responsibility to submit a nominee, the U.S. Senate has a responsibility to give that nominee a thorough and fair review. I strongly urge my colleagues to swiftly hold a public hearing and vote on Chief Judge Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"The President has a constitutional responsibility to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court, and the Senate has a constitutional responsibility to consider those nominees. I am pleased that President Obama fulfilled his duty by submitting Merrick Garland as a Supreme Court nominee, and I urge my Senate colleagues to fulfill ours by conducting a fair hearing process and holding a vote on the Senate floor. I look forward to thoroughly evaluating Mr. Garland’s qualifications to serve on our nation’s highest court, a pillar of our democracy that is too important to operate at less than full strength."[93]
Debbie Stabenow (D)
Senator Stabenow released the following statement after meeting with Judge Garland on April 19, 2016:[94]
| “ |
Today I had the privilege of meeting personally with Chief Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court. We had a very productive conversation about his judicial approach and philosophy and his decades of experience as a judge and prosecutor. I also had an opportunity to ask about his work at the Justice Department overseeing the investigation and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing. His commitment to justice for the victims was remarkable and had a lasting impact on his life’s work. I am confident Judge Garland is a highly qualified Supreme Court nominee and that he would be an outstanding U.S. Supreme Court justice. The Senate has a Constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on Judge Garland’s nomination through a fair confirmation process. I join the overwhelming majority of Americans in calling for a public hearing and vote on Judge Garland’s nomination. It’s time for Senate Republicans to do their job. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"One of the most important Constitutional duties as a United States Senator is to confirm Justices of the Supreme Court. It is essential that the next Justice be highly-qualified as well as fair and impartial. In the coming weeks, I will carefully review Judge Merrick Garland’s record. This is a job I take very seriously, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. The American people deserve fair and open hearings and a vote on the President’s nominee to the highest court in the land."[95]
Minnesota
Al Franken (D)
After meeting with Judge Garland on March 30, 2016, Senator Franken released a statement which read (in part), "Chief Judge Garland leads one of our nation's most important courts, and during his nearly two decades on the bench, he's received broad support from both parties ... Judge Garland is a consensus candidate, and I was pleased to welcome him to my office today to talk about his approach to the law. The President did his job by nominating Judge Garland, and now it's time for us to do ours: hold hearings and have a vote. Senate Republicans should not shirk their constitutional duty, and I expect us to fulfill our obligation by moving forward with a hearing and a vote. The American people deserve to get to know Judge Garland-let's give them that opportunity."[96]
In remarks made at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minn., Senator Franken said, "I just want to continue making the case to the American people and the people in Minnesota to put pressure on Republicans to back off their position, which I don’t think is particularly principled ... They have already begun to soften … my hope is they will continue to do that."[97]
Senator Franken made the following remarks in a March 2016 Senate Judiciary Committee meeting,[98]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "Chief Judge Garland leads one of our nation's most important courts, and during his decades on the bench, he's enjoyed broad bipartisan support ... I was glad to be at the White House today when the President announced his nomination, and in the days to come, I look forward to closely examining Judge Garland's record.
Now that the President has done his job, it is time for us to do ours. And if Republicans choose to shirk their constitutional duty, I'm not sure why they're even in the Senate. I expect us to fulfill our obligation, move forward with this nominee, and not get bogged down by political games. Filling a vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court is simply too important to let partisan politics get in the way.
Nominees to the highest court in the land deserve full and fair consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I sit, so I look forward to both meeting Judge Garland and to his appearance before the Committee."[99]
Amy Klobuchar (D)
Senator Klobuchar was quoted in an April 9, 2016, report commenting on the Garland nomination:
"We really have to do some soul-searching about what would we do if it was a Republican president and a Democratic Senate, and I’ve come to the conclusion that with a year left here I would have certainly gone forward and met with the person and had hearings ... I don’t know who the person is so I can't say how I would have voted but it’s just outrageous to the entire nomination process and to the Senate if we keep this up."[100]
In a March 23, 2016, piece for Time magazine, Senator Klobuchar outlined nine questions she would pose to Judge Garland:[101]
| “ |
|
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "The President has done his job in nominating this exemplary jurist. Now, we need to do our job in the Senate ... While I look forward to meeting with Judge Garland, I have met him several times in the past and liked him. I have been particularly impressed by his record and background as well as his ability to gain bipartisan support with his 76-23 Senate vote for the D.C. Circuit. The Constitution is clear: the Senate must consider the President’s nominee and then choose whether to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ We must do our job, hold hearings, and vote."[102]
Mississippi
Thad Cochran (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"The justice who eventually fills the current vacancy on the court will have long-lasting and far-reaching impact on our laws. The American people, through the election of a new President this fall, should have a say in this nomination.
President Obama is within his constitutional rights to submit a nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy, and the Senate is within its constitutional rights to determine how it will exercise its advice and consent responsibilities. The bipartisan precedent of holding a Supreme Court vacancy open through the end of a president’s term in an election year should be maintained."[103]
Roger Wicker (R)
Senator Wicker was interviewed by CNN's Erin Burnett regarding the Supreme Court nomination:[104]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "The American people should have the opportunity to make their voices heard before filling a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court. In November, the country will get that chance by choosing a new President – a process that is well underway.
Until then, our time should be spent addressing the many other legislative matters before us to strengthen our economy, create jobs, and secure our nation."[105]
Missouri
Roy Blunt (R)
The Associated Press and KSDK-TV reported on comments made in an April 5, 2016, conference call with reporters that Senator Blunt would not meet with Judge Garland. According to a report on the call, "Blunt told reporters ... that he sees no need to meet with appeals Judge Merrick Garland because he doesn't believe Garland should be confirmed ... Blunt says voters should have a say in process through the presidential election. He says the Senate should not confirm any Supreme Court nominee before Obama's term ends in January 2017. Blunt says the new president should get to nominate Scalia's replacement."[106]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"This is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. The president has every right to nominate someone, and the Senate has the Constitutional responsibility to decide if it’s the right person at the right time. I will not vote for this nominee to the Supreme Court."[107]
Claire McCaskill (D)
Senator McCaskill made the following comments on her meeting with Judge Garland. The comments were reported in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:[108]
| “ |
It is pretty clear to me that this is not some wild-eyed going to go off and take cases that are on the edges (nominee). I think he is somebody who really understands that this is just about calling balls and strikes in terms of applying existing law. I don’t think he would be somebody who would be an activist judge in any sense. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"Since Supreme Court nominee hearings began in 1916, every nominee’s received a hearing, or been confirmed within days. I'm appalled that Senate Republicans are ignoring the Constitution and refusing to do their job. Hold a hearing, for gosh sakes, and then vote."[109]
Montana
Steve Daines (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"The replacement of Justice Scalia will have far-reaching impacts on our country for a generation. The American people have already begun voting on who the next President will be and their voice should continue to be reflected in a process that will have lasting implications on our nation. The U.S. Senate should exercise its constitutional powers by not confirming a new Supreme Court justice until the American people elect a new President and have their voices heard. I will oppose any hearing or votes for President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court."[110]
Jon Tester (D)
Senator Tester released the following statement after meeting with Judge Garland on May 12, 2016:[111]
| “ |
I've had my meeting with Garland now it's time for the public to have theirs ... The American people should have an opportunity to vet Judge Garland through a public hearing. Unfortunately, Senate obstructionists are once again refusing to do their jobs. If Congress operated like a business, the employees would have been fired weeks ago. [9] |
” |
Senator Tester, speaking as a panelist on the Supreme Court vacancy, told an audience at the University of Montana's Alexander Blewett III School of Law, "There’s a lot of folks who I work with who wrap themselves in the Constitution when it’s convenient ... They have decided not to do their job. Folks can’t hold an entire process hostage because it’s an election year."[112]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"It's now time for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility and do its job. I look forward to meeting with Judge Garland and reviewing his credentials to ensure he will uphold the Constitution. I urge my Senate colleagues to put aside politics, roll up their sleeves, and start governing like the American people deserve."[113]
Nebraska
Deb Fischer (R)
"It is crucial for Nebraskans and all Americans to have a voice in the selection of the next person to serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, and there is precedent to do so. Therefore, I believe this position should not be filled until the election of a new president."[114]
Ben Sasse (R)
Senator Sasse offered the following comment on the Supreme Court in advance of the nomination of Merrick Garland,[115]
Nevada
Dean Heller (R)
"The chances of approving a new nominee are slim, but Nevadans should have a voice in the process. That’s why I encourage the President to use this opportunity to put the will of the people ahead of advancing a liberal agenda on the nation’s highest court. But should he decide to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, who knows, maybe it’ll be a Nevadan."[116]
Harry Reid (D); Senate Democratic Leader
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"Judge Merrick Garland is a brilliant man who will make a fine Supreme Court justice. He is a highly qualified jurist with decades of experience, whose career exemplifies a straight-forward approach to the law. The Senate should do its Constitutional duty and provide this good man with a fair and open confirmation process. The American people expect nothing less.
Earlier today, Donald Trump called on Republicans to block this highly-qualified nominee. Republicans now face a choice between blindly taking their marching orders from Donald Trump, or doing their jobs and providing fair consideration to this highly-qualified nominee.
I am optimistic that cooler heads will prevail, and sensible Republicans will provide Judge Garland with the fair treatment that a man of his stature and qualifications deserves. The American people expect their elected leaders to do their jobs. President Obama is performing his Constitutional duty. I hope Senate Republicans will do theirs."[117]
New Hampshire
Kelly Ayotte (R)
Senator Ayotte released the following statement following her meeting with Judge Garland on April 13, 2016:[118]
| “ |
Judge Garland and I had a cordial meeting, and I thanked him for his service. We spoke about the important role of the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of our Constitution, and we discussed his background and judicial philosophy. I also explained my view that, given we are in the midst of a vigorous presidential election, I believe the people should have a voice on this important nomination. I continue to believe the confirmation process should wait until the people have spoken in November. [9] |
” |
On April 4, 2016, the senator released a statement that she would meet with Judge Garland on April 13. In the statement, Senator Ayotte 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."[119]
Senator Ayotte gave the following interview regarding the Garland nomination on March 20, 2016:[120]
On March 16, 2016, Senator Ayotte told NH1 News, "Judge Garland has now been nominated. And certainly out of courtesy and respect I will be meeting with him if he wants to me with me ... I will clearly explain to him as well that I believe that people should be weighing in in the November elections before a confirmation process goes forward based on who gets elected president in November."[121]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"Empowered with a lifetime appointment, the next Supreme Court justice will likely have a significant impact on the court and the people of our country for years. In the midst of a presidential election and a consequential debate about the future of our country, I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the direction of the court. I continue to believe the Senate should not move forward with the confirmation process until the people have spoken by electing a new president."[122]
Jeanne Shaheen (D)
Senator Shaheen released a statement after meeting with Judge Garland on April 5, 2016:[123]
| “ |
It was a pleasure to meet with Judge Garland today and discuss his extensive legal career ... The obstruction of his nomination by Senate Republicans is unprecedented in our nation’s history. The Constitution is clear on the Senate’s obligation in the event of a vacancy on the Court and it’s time for the Republican majority to schedule hearings and a vote. Every Senator swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution and that oath applies to election years and nonelection years alike. I will continuing to review Judge Garland’s record and I hope my Republican colleagues will do the same and commit to moving this process forward. [9] |
” |
Senator Shaheen addressed the Supreme Court nomination in the following remarks:
In remarks published in the New Hampshire Union-Leader, Senator Shaheen said in regards to the Supreme Court nomination, "We need to get on with it ... The idea that we should not do this in an election year is just something that’s been made up for partisan reasons."[125]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "Today, the President fulfilled his constitutional responsibility. Now it’s the Senate’s turn. Every Senator swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution and that oath applies to election years and nonelection years alike. Without question, the American people expect us to do our jobs. The Senate has a longstanding bipartisan tradition of giving fair consideration to Supreme Court nominees and I will continue to honor that tradition. I look forward to meeting Judge Garland in the near future, and reviewing his qualifications."[126]
New Jersey
Cory Booker (D)
Senator Booker gave the following interview to NJTV News subsequent to his meeting with Judge Garland on April 12, 2016:[127]
Senator Booker gave the following floor speech on the Merrick Garland nomination on March 17, 2016:[128]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "Chief Judge Merrick Garland is a highly respected jurist with a distinguished record of service to our country that has earned the support and admiration of Republicans and Democrats alike. The Senate has no excuse to ignore, blockade, or stonewall consideration of this nominee. I look forward to reviewing Chief Judge Garland’s record and meeting with him in the weeks ahead. My Senate colleagues must fulfill their constitutional duty and do the same. The Senate must do its job to provide advice and consent, and swiftly schedule hearings, debate, and an up-or-down vote."[129]
Robert Menendez (D)
Senator Menendez released the following statement after meeting with Judge Garland on April 21, 2016:[130]
| “ |
I very much enjoyed and appreciated the opportunity to meet personally with Judge Garland today and to discuss his extensive legal experience and approach to the law. Our conversation made clear to me that he is a careful, thoughtful jurist with a deep appreciation and impressive intellect of the law. Judge Garland is a highly capable candidate who deserves a full vetting before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate has a Constitutional duty to consider the President’s nomination, and I once again urge the Republican majority to allow us to fulfill this duty, and to do their job, by holding hearings and scheduling a vote. The politically motivated refusal to do so is unprecedented in our nation’s history and the American people do not deserve to have Republican gridlock extend to the Judiciary. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "Today President Obama has fulfilled his Constitutional obligation to send to the United States Senate a nominee worthy of filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court. It is now the Constitutional duty of the United States Senate – all 100 of us – to consider this nominee through a hearing, debate and vote.
The American people expect us to do our job, without delay and politically-motivated excuses. I take this responsibility seriously and I look forward to the opportunity to learn more about Judge Garland’s credentials, to study his record and to meet with him personally.
I urge Republican leaders to now respect both the words of the Constitution and the voices of the American people. Let’s get to work. Democracy must not stop at the Capitol steps."[131]
New Mexico
Martin Heinrich (D)
Senator Heinrich released the following statement after meeting with Judge Garland on May 19, 2016:[132]
| “ |
Judge Garland and I had an extensive conversation, which shed light on his distinguished record and thoughtful judicial philosophy. I will continue to thoroughly consider his nomination for our highest court ... The political games surrounding the Supreme Court nomination process have been extremely disappointing. There is no reason beyond partisan politics to deprive the American people of a fully-staffed Supreme Court. The Senate Republicans' refusal to hold hearings and a vote on Judge Garland's nomination is irresponsible and contrary to the oaths we all swore. It is long past time for every member of the Senate to do their job. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "From what I have seen this morning, Chief Judge Merrick Garland certainly has an impressive resume. I look forward to sitting down with him and learning more about his judicial philosophy and record. I will take care to examine his judicial record closely before I make any decision on whether to support his nomination.
We have a job to do here in the Senate. It is our Constitutional duty to exercise advice and consent for Supreme Court justices. It is my sincere hope that all of us will take that job seriously by holding hearings, conducting interviews and, ultimately, by holding a vote on this nominee."[133]
Senator Heinrich gave the following statement regarding the Supreme Court nomination process:
[134]
Tom Udall (D)
Senator Udall released the following statement following his meeting with Judge Garland on May 18, 2016:[135]
| “ |
I had a very good meeting with Judge Garland. This was my opportunity to learn more about his judicial record and his position on issues that are important to New Mexico families, such as getting money out of politics, ownership of public lands, Tribal law, immigration, and the president's action to fight climate change. He's not a Westerner, but he is well-versed and well-informed, and he is not prejudging any particular subject matter. That's important. Voting on a presidential nominee to the Supreme Court is one of the most important duties a senator has. And that's why I'm very disappointed that Senate Republicans are refusing to hold hearings on any nominee by President Obama -- refusing to do their most important job as senators. The Constitution is clear. The Senate shall offer its advice and consent. It doesn't say 'except when the nomination is made in the last year of a president's term.' This obstruction is unprecedented. The majority needs to do its job: hold hearings and a vote. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "Merrick Garland has an impressive record as a jurist. He was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court - one of the most important courts in the nation - with strong bipartisan support, and he has demonstrated a commitment to public service. I look forward to meeting with him and examining his record in more detail as part of my duty as a United States senator. After all senators have had the appropriate time to consider him, I hope that we each will be able to cast a vote - up or down - about whether to confirm him to the U.S. Supreme Court. Few of the Senate's constitutional duties are more important than offering our advice and consent on Supreme Court nominations. That's why I have been deeply disappointed by the Senate Majority's refusal so far even to hold hearings on any nominee by President Obama. The Senate has always voted on every pending nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy, even when the nomination is made in the last months of a president's term. To say that the president's nominee doesn't even deserve a hearing is an example of Senate dysfunction and partisan politics at their very worst. The president has done his job, and it's time for the Senate to do ours."[136]
New York
Kirsten Gillibrand (D)
After meeting with Judge Garland on March 30, 2016, Senator Gillibrand released the following statement,
"After meeting with Judge Merrick Garland, it is clear he is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. I urge all my colleagues to meet with him and assess his qualifications, hold hearings and vote on his confirmation. The issues before the Supreme Court are too important to go months with a vacancy on the bench."[137]
Senator Gillibrand posted the following tweets to her Twitter account on March 16, 2016, regarding the Merrick Garland nomination:
"I strongly urge my colleagues to hold hearings & allow the full Senate to vote on Judge Garland's nomination in a timely manner. #DoYourJob"[138]
"Pres. Obama has done the right thing by offering up his @SCOTUSnom, now it's the Senate's turn to fulfill our constitutional duty #DoYourJob"[139]
Charles Schumer (D)
In comments reported by Politico on March 30, 2016, Senator Schumer said, "I’m very positively inclined to vote for Judge Garland but it’s always a good idea to wait for the hearings before making a final commitment. We hope Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will reverse course and hold a hearing so Senators and the public can get a deeper sense of Judge Garland's views and experience."[140]
On March 22, 2016, Senator Schumer presented the following to the Syracuse Media Group regarding Judge Garland's nomination:[141][142]
In comments reported by the Washington Examiner on March 16, 2016, Senator Schumer said, "If Merrick Garland can't get bipartisan support, no one can ... He is a thoughtful jurist with impeccable credentials who has already garnered overwhelming bipartisan support for a job that requires nearly the exact same criteria as a Supreme Court justice. He gets the impact of the court's decisions on hardworking Americans in the real world ... We hope the saner heads in the Republican Party will prevail on Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell to do their job and hold hearings so America can make its own judgement as to whether Merrick Garland belongs on the court."[143]
North Carolina
Richard Burr (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"The American people deserve a voice in the nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice. This appointment could easily tip the balance of the court in a direction not supported by the American people as evidenced by 2014’s election results giving Republicans both the Senate and House."[144]
Thom Tillis (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"While President Obama is entitled to nominate an individual to the Supreme Court, the Senate has made it clear it will be exercising its Constitutional authority to withhold consent of the nomination. We are in the middle of a presidential election, and the Senate majority is giving the American people a voice to determine the direction of the Supreme Court. This is about the principle, not the person. Rather than drag the nation into a bitter, partisan fight over a confirmation process that will never come to pass, I hope President Obama will use his final months in office to work across the aisle with Congress to produce meaningful solutions that create new opportunities for hardworking Americans."[145]
North Dakota
Heidi Heitkamp (D)
Senator Heitkamp made the following comments in a statement after meeting with Judge Garland on April 7, 2016:[146]
| “ |
Vetting nominees to fill vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court is one of the most important roles of a U.S. senator, and I take that job very seriously ... Judge Garland and I had a thorough and thoughtful discussion today where I had an opportunity to get to know him and understand what kind of person he is. It was clear from our meeting that he’s intelligent, experienced, and focused on adherence to precedence and the rule of law. Additionally, I pressed him on his vigilance for the Bill of Rights and we talked about a variety of issues, including tribal rights and sovereignty, administrative overreach, privacy rights, and the Second Amendment. We also talked about his record as a prosecutor and the need to make sure law enforcement has the tools to protect society within the bounds of the Constitution, an issue important to me as a former state attorney general. And I joked with him about how it’s hard to be a moderate in this town. Our conversation this morning reinforced why Judge Garland’s nomination should receive full and fair consideration, why more senators should meet with him, and why the Senate needs to stop playing politics and do its job by holding a public hearing and an up or down vote on Judge Garland. Congress can do better, and that’s possible if it stops the partisan gridlock and works together by doing its job – just as Americans across the country do every day. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "When North Dakotans go to work each day, they are expected to do their jobs to the best of their abilities so they can make a living and feed their families ... But some U.S. senators want to skirt their jobs and constitutional responsibilities by playing politics with our highest court – a branch of government that should be above politics. The U.S. Senate needs to take responsibility and do its job by meeting with Judge Garland, holding a hearing so we can hear directly from him about his lifetime body of work both before and during his time on the federal bench, and then hold an up or down vote on him in the full Senate. At that time, any senator is free to vote against the nominee. Since public confirmation hearings began, the Senate has never denied a U.S. Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote. We cannot allow this moment to be the first time. The same senators who claim to want Congress to work are instead promoting partisan gridlock. But they can change that discourse -- by holding a hearing and a vote on the nominee. I look forward to meeting with Judge Garland and reviewing his record which will help provide an informed decision on his nomination."[147]
John Hoeven (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"The American people need to have an opportunity to voice their opinion at the ballot box as to what kind of judge they want to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. In fact, that is actually a bipartisan position expressed by numerous Democratic leaders in recent years
Facts about the Democratic position on considering Supreme Court nominees in an election year demonstrate a double standard. (See today’s Washington Post’s Fact Checker.)
- The Biden Rule: In 1992, then Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden said: "it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not - and not - name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
- Democratic Leader Harry Reid in 2005 said: "The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote."
- Presumptive Democratic leader Chuck Schumer in 2007 said: "[F]or the rest of this President's term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation."
More importantly, whoever is appointed to the Supreme Court needs to be good for North Dakota ... In the coming months and years, the Court will be ruling on such important issues as President Obama’s costly new federal regulations on agriculture and energy production. For example, the Waters of the U.S. rule, or WOTUS, would adversely affect every one of our farmers and ranchers. New regulations on CO2 and fracking would hurt our ability to produce electricity and oil and gas for the nation. Any Obama nominee, like this one, will support the president’s regulatory agenda, which is counter to the interests of North Dakota."[148]
Ohio
Sherrod Brown (D)
Senator Brown addressed reporters after meeting with Judge Garland on April 7, 2016:[149]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"President Obama is doing his job and nominating Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Now it’s time for Senators to do our jobs,” said Brown. “Senate Republicans have said they will refuse to even meet with this President’s nominee, much less hold a hearing and an up-or-down vote. But now we have an unquestionably qualified nominee who has earned support from both Republicans and Democrats in the past, so I expect my colleagues to put politics aside, do the job we were elected to do and give Judge Garland full and fair consideration. Anything less undermines our democracy."[150]
Rob Portman (R)
Senator Portman released the following statement following his April 14, 2016, meeting with Judge Garland:[151]
| “ |
I want to thank Judge Garland for his service. We had a very cordial meeting, and I enjoyed the opportunity to meet him. As I have said previously, however, I believe the American people should have a voice in this debate. This is a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations, and I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in. Instead of having a nomination fight in this partisan election-year environment, I believe awaiting the result of the election will give the nominee more legitimacy and better preserve the Court’s credibility as an institution. This is the same position that Vice President Biden and Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer have outlined in the past. After the election, I look forward to considering the nominee of our new president. Whether the American people elect a Republican or Democrat, I will judge his or her nominee on the merits, as I always have. [9] |
” |
Senator Portman authored an editorial in The Cincinnati Enquirer on his reasons for delaying consideration of the Supreme Court vacancy until after the 2016 general election.[152]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"As I have said previously, I believe it is better for the country to allow the American people to have a voice in this debate. We are in the midst of a highly-charged presidential election that is less than eight months away, and this lifetime appointment could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people and allow them to weigh in on this issue. This is the same position that Vice President Biden and Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer have outlined in the past.
This is about the principle, not the person. I believe that awaiting the result of a democratic election, rather than having a nomination fight in this partisan election-year environment, will give the nominee more legitimacy and better preserve the Court’s credibility as an institution. After the election, I look forward to considering the nominee of our new president. Whether the American people elect a Republican or Democrat, I will judge his or her nominee on the merits, as I always have."[153]
Oklahoma
The Oklahoma senators released a joint statement after meeting together with Merrick Garland on April 27, 2016:[154]
| “ |
During our time with Judge Garland, we extended Oklahoma’s gratitude for the many weeks he spent in our state working for justice for those who lost loved ones from the Oklahoma City Bombing. Judge Garland was aware going into this meeting that we will not support any Supreme Court nomination during this presidential election year. The Senate’s constitutional role of ‘advice and consent’ includes the ability to choose the right time and determine if the nominee is the right person. Well before the President nominated Judge Garland, the majority of the Members of the Senate determined that a presidential election year is not the right time to start a nomination process for the Supreme Court. We should continue the long-standing election-year precedent and let Americans have a voice on the future direction of the Court. [9] |
” |
The Oklahoma senators published an op-ed in The Oklahoman on March 27, 2016, regarding the Supreme Court vacancy.[155]
James Inhofe (R)
Senator Inhofe was interviewed by Neil Cavuto of Fox Business regarding the Merrick Garland nomination:[156]
Senator Inhofe provided comments on the Merrick Garland nomination during a stop at the Ada Municipal Airport in Ada, Oklahoma. When asked if he felt the Senate GOP would remain unified in their opposition to the Garland nomination, the senator said, "I sure hope so, and I think so ... I sure will ... if we cave in, this would be the first time since 1888 that’s happened, and we’re not going to cave in."[157]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "While I will evaluate the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, the next president should be the one to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. President Obama has worked to ram through his liberal agenda by way of executive actions, of which many are now tied up in the courts. This has created a situation where we need to be cautious as to who will fill the vacancy left behind by Justice Scalia. It makes the current presidential election all that more important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings. Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have all made statements that the Senate does not have to confirm presidential nominations in an election year. I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future."[158]
James Lankford (R)
On March 17, 2016, Senator Lankford suggested he was open to meeting with Judge Garland, as reported in the Los Angeles Times, "I have no problem meeting with him ... But we already know where this is going to go."[159]
The senator gave the following video response to the nomination of Merrick Garland:[160]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"The death of Justice Antonin Scalia is an enormous loss for the Supreme Court, but more importantly for our nation. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is extremely important and will shape monumental decisions that will impact America for decades. Justice Scalia’s constitutional approach to legal interpretation should be the standard for people who serve on the Highest Court in the land.
Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution gives the President and the Senate an equal 50-50 responsibility in the process of filling a Supreme Court vacancy. The President has today fulfilled his constitutional requirement, now the Senate has an opportunity to provide 'advice and consent.’ While the Constitution says the President shall nominate judges to the Supreme Court, it does not say the Senate shall approve a nominee. Based on previous historical precedent, I support Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley’s intent to give the American people a say in Justice Scalia’s replacement this year at the ballot box.
In June 25, 1992, then-Senator and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Joe Biden, said, 'Can our Supreme Court nomination and confirmation processes, so racked by discord and bitterness, be repaired in a Presidential election year? History teaches us that this is extremely unlikely. It is my view that if the President…presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” Biden also said “President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.'
As Senator Harry Reid said on May 19, 2005, 'The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote.'"[161]
Senator Lankford gave the following statement from the Senate floor regarding the Supreme Court vacancy on March 9, 2016:[162]
Oregon
Jeff Merkley (D)
Senator Merkley released the following statement after meeting with Judge Garland on May 19, 2016:[163]
| “ |
I was honored to meet with Merrick Garland today. We had a wide-ranging conversation about many of the issues facing our nation, and how he would think about these issues if they were to come before the Supreme Court. It is clear to me from my conversation with Chief Judge Garland that he is a detail-oriented and highly-qualified jurist. He would bring decades of legal experience and a great deal of thoughtfulness to his work as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. President Obama has done his job in putting forward an extremely qualified nominee. Now it is time for Senate Republicans to do theirs and to hold hearings and a vote on his nomination, as the Constitution requires. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"I thank President Obama for fulfilling his constitutional obligation to put forward a nominee to fill this critical vacancy. I look forward to meeting with Merrick Garland, reviewing his credentials and learning more about his vision for the Court. It’s time for the Senate to fulfill our own constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent. We have a responsibility to hold hearings, debates and votes in committee and on the floor. I look forward to fulfilling that responsibility and hope that the Senate as a whole will choose to do its job."[164]
Senator Merkley gave the following statement from the Senate floor regarding the Supreme Court vacancy on March 9, 2016:[165]
Ron Wyden (D)
"I plan to carefully examine Merrick Garland's record and judicial temperament and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. To do anything else shows enormous disrespect for the American people and the United States Senate as an institution."[166]
Pennsylvania
Bob Casey (D)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"Chief Judge Merrick Garland is an eminently qualified nominee for the Supreme Court who has established a record of fairness, integrity and legal excellence over many years. I look forward to reviewing Judge Garland’s record and giving his nomination the full consideration it deserves. The President has done his job as is proscribed under the Constitution, and it’s time for Senate Republicans to commit to doing their job by giving this nominee a fair hearing and a timely vote. Several Senate Republicans have engaged in outrageous political games by refusing to commit to giving any nominee under President Obama a hearing or even a meeting in their offices. The Constitution is clear. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution explicitly requires the President to select a nominee for any vacancy to the Supreme Court, and the Senate to advise and consent on that nominee.
The history is also clear. The Senate has taken action on every Supreme Court nominee in the last 100 years, regardless of whether the nomination was made in a presidential election year, and not since the Civil War has the Senate taken longer than a year to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. In 1987, Justice Kennedy was confirmed in the last year of President Reagan’s final term under a Democratic Senate, and the Senate has confirmed 17 Supreme Court nominees in presidential election years. It’s time for Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to reverse course. In January extreme rightwing groups like Heritage Action issued marching orders to Senate Republicans to shut down any judicial nominations until President Obama left office. Since then, Senate Republicans have marched in lockstep with Heritage Action and extreme voices on the right. The history of independence that the Senate Judiciary Committee has earned will evaporate if Committee Republicans continues down this path. Senators are free to vote however they choose on a Supreme Court nominee, but they must do their job and give that nominee a fair hearing and a timely vote."[167]
Senator Casey gave the following statement from the Senate floor regarding the Supreme Court vacancy on March 3, 2016:[168]
Pat Toomey (R)
After meeting with Judge Garland on April 12, 2016, Senator Toomey published an April 15, 2016, editorial outlining his reasoning for opposing the Merrick Garland nomination.[169]
"President Obama's team has asked if I would meet with Judge Merrick Garland, and I have agreed to do so out of courtesy and respect for both the president and the judge. The vacancy left by Justice Scalia's passing will not be filled until after the American people weigh in and select a new president, and I believe that is the best approach for deciding whether to alter the balance of the Supreme Court. I plan on making that clear to Judge Garland when I meet with him."[170]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "With the U.S. Supreme Court's balance at stake, and with the presidential election fewer than eight months away, it is wise to give the American people a more direct voice in the selection and confirmation of the next justice. Should Merrick Garland be nominated again by the next president, I would be happy to carefully consider his nomination, as I have done with dozens of judges submitted by President Obama."[171]
Rhode Island
Jack Reed (D)
Senator Reed released the following statement after meeting with Judge Garland on May 17, 2016:[172]
| “ |
I was extremely impressed with Merrick Garland. He is supremely well-qualified. Throughout his distinguished career as a prosecutor and as the chief judge for our nation’s second highest court, he has been a consensus builder who has earned bipartisan praise. Both Judge Garland and the American people deserve a fair, public hearing and a fully functioning government. There is plenty of room for tough questions and respectful debate in this process, but fidelity to our Constitution should come first. Republicans' stubborn refusal to even consider the nomination does a real disservice to our judicial system. A fully functioning Supreme Court is essential to our government and Republicans should not deprive the American people of a chance to fully understand what kind of justice Merrick Garland will be. I hope my Republican colleagues will reconsider their position and give Judge Garland and the American people the respect and consideration they deserve. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"Under our Constitution, the President is obligated to nominate a justice to fill openings on the Supreme Court and the Senate has a duty to independently consider the nominee. In choosing Judge Garland, the President has fulfilled his commitment and now it is the Senate’s turn.
A fully functioning Supreme Court is essential to our government, judiciary, and legal system. The American people deserve a fair hearing on Judge Garland’s nomination to fully understand what kind of justice he will be. There is plenty of room for tough questions and respectful debate in this process, but fidelity to our Constitution should come first.
I will carefully and objectively review this nomination, and I hope my Republican colleagues will change their tune and take this opportunity to review and debate this nominee rather than stonewall and avoid their duty."[173]
Sheldon Whitehouse (D)
Senator Whitehouse released the following statement after meeting with Judge Garland on April 6, 2016:[174]
| “ |
I had the privilege to work with Merrick Garland when we were both with the Department of Justice during the Clinton Administration. Our meeting today reminded me of the strong judgment, first-rate intellect, and good nature that won him such broad respect within the Department and the legal community. It was a pleasure catching up, and I was glad to discuss his legal experiences and background. He is an exemplary jurist who possesses the sort of even temperament common to many of our greatest Justices. United States Senators have always carried out their duty to consider and vote on the President’s Supreme Court nominations. We have an eminently qualified jurist in Judge Garland, who should receive a hearing and a vote on the Senate floor. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to honor their constitutional duty and act on this nomination. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "Congratulations to Chief Judge Garland on his nomination to serve on the highest court in the land. He is an experienced jurist, who has shown a strong commitment to public service. I look forward to considering his qualifications further in the weeks to come.
As an accomplished and respected attorney and judge, Merrick Garland deserves a timely hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee and a vote on the Senate floor. The Constitution could not be clearer: the President nominates and the Senate responds with its advice and consent. Indeed, since 1875, the Senate has never denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing or a vote. To do so now would be to abandon the Senate’s responsibility and ignore the will of the American people, who rightly expect us to do our job. I hope my Republican colleagues show Mr. Garland the respect he deserves and act on his nomination."[175]
South Carolina
Lindsey Graham (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"As I have repeatedly stated, the election cycle is well under way and the precedent of the Senate is not to confirm a nominee at this stage in the process. I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president. I hope all Americans understand how important their vote is when it comes to picking a new Supreme Court Justice. The American people should choose wisely this November.
Finally, one thing I know for sure is that if the shoe was on the other foot, the Democratic leadership would not even entertain such an appointment coming from a Republican president. How do I know? By their words and example. In this limited circumstance, I’m following the recommendations of Democratic Senators Reid, Schumer and then-Senator Biden. It was a rare moment of clarity when they made it clear that in circumstances like these, the president’s nominee should not be confirmed."[176]
In a March 1, 2016, interview with David Axelrod, a former advisor to President Barack Obama, Sen. Graham had the following exchange:[177]
| “ |
GRAHAM: Here’s what I tell Republicans. We all love the 'let the people decide,' but what happens if [Hillary Clinton] wins? What happens if she wins and she sends over a liberal judge? AXELROD: And you said a couple minutes ago that you think if it’s her and Trump, she will win. GRAHAM: Yeah. I tell my Republicans colleagues watch what you say today. Because if she wins the people have spoken she chooses somebody liberal — which she will — who is qualified — which I am certain they will be — I am going to vote for them. [9] |
” |
Senator Graham was interviewed by CBS News about the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the vacancy Scalia's passing created on the Supreme Court:[178]
Tim Scott (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"Among the most important responsibilities of any United States Senator is our role of ‘advice and consent’ on a range of cabinet secretaries, judges, and ambassadors put forth by a President, including appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Under our Constitution, replacing a justice is a responsibility shared by both the president and the Senate – he nominates and the Senate then considers the nomination as part of our advisory role. The Constitution does not make the Senate a rubber stamp for any president.
Sadly, President Obama has spent the last seven years making unconstitutional, overreaching regulations to drive his agenda against the will of the people’s representatives in Congress.
The next President should fill the open seat on the Supreme Court, not a lame duck. Our nation is in the middle of an election that will replace this president and it has brought people out in every corner of our country in record numbers to have their voice heard. As elected officials, we need to protect the American people’s chance to have their voices heard in the decision on who will be appointed to a lifetime seat on the nation’s high court. The last time a majority of the American people went to the polls, they elected conservatives and a Republican Senate to be a check-and-balance to President Obama and his agenda.
I believe that my duty is to the people of South Carolina; not to the President. As a result, I will not consider any Supreme Court nominee until after the country has elected our next president in November and they have taken office in January 2017. This is about the principle that the American people must have a voice in who the next Supreme Court nominee will be and I intend to honor that principle."[179]
South Dakota
Mike Rounds (R)
Senator Rounds released the following after meeting with Merrick Garland on April 27, 2016:[180]
| “ |
As a former governor, I respect the president’s responsibility to make a nomination. Today I met with Judge Garland as a courtesy. During our meeting, I thanked him for allowing the president to place his name in nomination. However, I believe that Justice Scalia’s replacement should be nominated by the next President of the United States. [9] |
” |
Senator Rounds gave the following statement from the Senate floor after the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland:[181]
John Thune (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"For the last seven years, President Obama has attempted to circumvent Congress and the will of the American people with unconstitutional, overreaching regulations. The Senate Republican majority was elected to be a check and balance to President Obama.
The American people deserve to have their voices heard on the nomination of the next Supreme Court justice, who could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court for a generation. Since the next presidential election is already underway, the next president should make this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."[182]
Tennessee
Lamar Alexander (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"This debate is not about Judge Garland. It’s about whether to give the American people a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice."[183]
Bob Corker (R)
"On a bipartisan basis, members of Congress have stated that filling a Supreme Court vacancy that occurs during the president's last year in office is not the right thing to do."[184]
Texas
John Cornyn (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"While the President has the constitutional authority to make a nomination to fill this vacancy, the Senate also has the authority and responsibility to determine how to move forward with it.
"The next justice could change the ideological makeup of the Court for a generation, and fundamentally reshape American society in the process.
At this critical juncture in our nation's history, Texans and the American people deserve to have a say in the selection of the next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
The only way to empower the American people and ensure they have a voice is for the next President to make the nomination to fill this vacancy."[185]
Senator Cornyn gave the following statement on the Supreme Court vacancy:[186]
Ted Cruz (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"I proudly stand with my Republican colleagues in our shared belief - our advice and consent - that we should not vote on any nominee until the next president is sworn into office ... The People will decide. I commend Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley for holding the line and ensuring that We the People get to exercise our authority to decide the direction of the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights."[187]
Senator Cruz was interviewed by Chuck Todd of NBC's Meet the Press about the death of Justice Scalia and the vacancy on the Supreme Court:[188]
Utah
Orrin Hatch (R)
Senator Hatch released the following statement following his May 26, 2016, meeting with Judge Garland:[189]
| “ |
Merrick Garland is an honorable public servant who deserves our respect. We have been friends for nearly two decades, and I look forward to visiting with him today. Despite my personal affection for Merrick, I remain convinced that the right way for the Senate to do its job is to conduct a confirmation process after this contentious presidential election season is over. Doing so is the proper course to ensure a constructive process for a nominee and to preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court. [9] |
” |
Senator Hatch also authored an editorial about his meeting with Judge Garland that was published in The Deseret News. A draft version of this editorial was published by the newspaper inadvertently prior to the meeting between Senator Hatch and Judge Garland taking place. The newspaper subsequently apologized to the senator and its readers for the error.[190][191]
Senator Hatch authored a March 28, 2016, editorial in which he wrote (in part), "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."[192]
Senator Hatch authored a March 22, 2016, editorial in which he wrote (in part), "The legitimacy of the Supreme Court rests on the public’s perception that our judiciary is fair, impartial and not susceptible to the pressures of partisan politics. By seeking to thrust a confirmation battle into the middle of a particularly bitter presidential election, President Barack Obama carelessly risks further polarizing and politicizing the confirmation process, and further damaging the integrity and public standing of the Supreme Court as an institution."[193]
Senator Hatch gave a speech on the Senate floor on March 17, 2016, in which he stated:
| “ |
I think highly of Judge Garland. But his nomination doesn’t in any way change current circumstances. I remain convinced that the best way for the Senate to do its job is to conduct the confirmation process after this toxic presidential election season is over. Doing so is the only way to ensure fairness to the nominee and preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court. [9] |
” |
Senator Hatch's full speech can be found here.[194]
Senator Hatch gave the following speech on the Supreme Court vacancy:[195]
Mike Lee (R)
Senator Lee was interviewed by Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer regarding the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on March 16, 2016:[196]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"The president has full and complete power to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court, as he will reportedly do later today ... But the Constitution also gives the Senate the full and complete power to reject or confirm the nominee ... It’s as simple as that.
In light of the contentious presidential election already well underway, my colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee have already given our advice and consent on this issue: we will not have any hearings or votes on President Obama’s pick.
Any meeting with any nominee put forward by President Obama would only be a waste of the Senate’s time. The Court has very ably dealt with temporary absences in the past and will do so again now."[197]
Vermont
Patrick Leahy (D); Ranking member of Senate Judiciary Committee
Senator Leahy, in a floor speech on September 8, 2016, admonished the Senate for the delay on the nomination of Merrick Garland,[198]
| “ |
Chief Judge Garland is ideally suited to serve on the Supreme Court on Day One. He is currently the Chief Judge on the D.C. Circuit, also known as the second highest court. He has been a Federal judge for nearly two decades now, and has more Federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in our Nation’s history. As a former Federal prosecutor, he has been praised for his work leading the Justice Department’s efforts on the ground in Oklahoma City in the days after the worst act of home-grown terrorism in our country’s history. Republicans and Democrats alike have recognized Chief Judge Garland as a brilliant and impartial judge with unwavering fidelity to the rule of law. Republicans should let this chamber finally get to work on Chief Judge Garland’s nomination and bring the Supreme Court back to full strength in time for the first oral argument of October. Of all the challenges facing our country, ensuring that our Supreme Court can serve its highest constitutional function should not be one of them. This is a problem of Senate Republicans’ making but it is also one they can solve – and they should do so without any further delay. [9] |
” |
Senator Leahy authored an editorial on March 30, 2016, in which he advocated for hearings on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.[199]
Senator Leahy made the following remarks after his meeting with Judge Garland on March 17, 2016:[200]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"I congratulate Chief Judge Garland, whose qualifications are impeccable, on his nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. He is widely admired throughout the legal profession and is one of the most accomplished judges on the federal bench. The President has chosen carefully, and well.
Chief Judge Garland is undeniably fair-minded and independent, and it is no wonder that he has received praise from across the political spectrum. He should be confirmed without controversy. His extensive service on the bench, as well as his experience leading and supervising the teams prosecuting two of the most notorious domestic terrorism cases in history – the Oklahoma City bombing and the Unabomber case – make Chief Judge Garland immensely and undeniably qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
President Obama has carried out his constitutional duty in nominating a superbly qualified nominee to the Supreme Court. I know his decision was the result of thorough and careful consideration. The President also consulted with both Republican and Democratic Senators before making this nomination. Now it is time for the Senate to do its job.
There is more than enough time for Senators to publicly and thoroughly examine Chief Judge Garland’s qualifications and vote on his confirmation before Memorial Day. For more than 40 years, the Senate has held a confirmation vote on Supreme Court nominees on average 70 days after their formal nomination. The Senate should afford Chief Judge Garland the same process with a fair and public hearing in April, and the full Senate should vote on his confirmation by May 25.
I intend to meet with Judge Garland very soon, and I expect my fellow Senators will do the same. Next, we will all review his record and prepare for a public hearing. Our constitutional duties as Senators and the traditions of our institution should not be trumped by partisan politics."[201]
Bernie Sanders (I)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"Judge Garland is a strong nominee with decades of experience on the bench. My Republican colleagues have called Judge Garland a 'consensus nominee' and said that there is 'no question' he could be confirmed. Refusing to hold hearings on the president's nominee would be unprecedented. President Obama has done his job. It’s time for Republicans to do theirs. I call on Sen. Grassley to hold confirmation hearings immediately and for Leader McConnell to bring the nomination to floor of the Senate if Judge Garland is approved by the Judiciary Committee."[202]
Senator Sanders was interviewed by John Dickerson of CBS News about the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Scalia:[203]
Virginia
Tim Kaine (D)
On April 5, Senator Kaine gave the following floor speech regarding the Supreme Court nomination:[204]
Senator Kaine made the following remarks regarding the Merrick Garland nomination process at an April 2016 Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee meeting:[205]
Senator Kaine authored an editorial in The Virginian-Pilot on March 29, 2016, in which he advocated for hearings on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.[206]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "Merrick Garland is a well-respected jurist with impeccable qualifications and unrivaled experience. His legacy as an attorney includes overseeing high-profile domestic terrorism cases. He has also garnered enthusiastic support from Democrats and Republicans in the past, which should leave Republicans in the Senate no excuse for obstructing his confirmation process. Justice demands that the Senate provide advice and consent for any Supreme Court nominee. I commend President Obama for fulfilling his constitutional duty. It’s time for the Senate to do the same."[207]
Mark Warner (D)
Senator Warner provided the comments below following his April 13, 2016, meeting with Judge Garland. The comments were reported in the Fairfax News:[208]
| “ |
I had a productive conversation with Judge Garland about his judicial philosophy, and Virginians and Americans deserve the same opportunity to hear his thoughtful answers. As a senator who has considered the nominations of previous U.S. Supreme Court nominees, I think it is very important that the constitutional process move forward as the framers intended ... Virginians do not want the same partisan gridlock that’s impacted Congress in recent years to be extended to our country’s judicial branch of government. After a fair hearing, my colleagues have every right to vote their conscience, but they should not obstruct this process altogether ... I call upon my Republican colleagues to do their job, and allow the process to move forward: give this qualified nominee the hearing and the vote he deserves. [9] |
” |
Senator Warner was interviewed on Fox News discussing the Merrick Garland nomination:[209]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"Judge Garland is an exceptional judge worthy of the honor of serving on the Supreme Court. On the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, he has served with integrity and distinction fitting of a nominee to our nation’s highest court, and is widely respected on both sides of the aisle. He is the kind of consensus nominee that I believe is needed at this time.
This remarkably qualified appellate judge deserves a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, thoughtful consideration by the full Senate, and an up-or-down vote. I strongly urge my colleagues to respect the process and hope that they will allow the Senate to perform its constitutional duty to consider Judge Garland’s nomination."[210]
Washington
Maria Cantwell (D)
Senator Murray released the following statement after meeting with Judge Garland on June 9, 2016:[211]
| “ |
It has been clear from the start that Judge Merrick Garland is an exceedingly qualified nominee with a strong bipartisan record. After having the opportunity to meet and talk with him about his background and judicial perspectives, I have more confidence than ever that he is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Senate Republicans must do their jobs by holding a hearing and vote of the full Senate on Judge Garland’s nomination. Advice and consent isn’t an option, it’s an obligation. [9] |
” |
Senator Cantwell gave the following statement from the Senate floor regarding the Merrick Garland nomination on March 17, 2016:[212]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"Judge Garland is a highly qualified nominee. Now it’s time for the Senate to do its job. Advice and consent isn’t an option, it’s an obligation."[213]
Patty Murray (D)
Senator Murray released the following statement after meeting with Judge Garland on April 13, 2016:[214]
| “ |
After meeting with Judge Garland and having the chance to talk through his background, experiences, and judicial philosophy in person--it is clearer than ever to me that he is a strong nominee who is absolutely qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. I am hopeful that more and more Republicans will listen to their constituents and agree to take the first step of meeting with Judge Garland as well. And then they should continue to do their job and give him true consideration, a fair hearing, and a vote. In my meeting with Judge Garland, we discussed a range of issues that impact families across Washington state. I was especially interested in his thinking about the right to privacy and how it relates to women's reproductive rights. We also discussed campaign finance reform, his experience evaluating cases about the right of workers to organize and make their voices heard, and other issues people in Washington state are focused on. Although I will continue reviewing his background and I am hopeful that Republicans will allow us to learn more from a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, I am very encouraged by what I heard in our meeting. Judge Garland should receive the fair consideration the American people expect. [9] |
” |
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"Judge Merrick Garland is a strong nominee with an impressive background and impeccable credentials. He is a consensus candidate who has received strong bipartisan support in the past and has been praised by Democrats and Republicans alike—so I am hopeful that he will get fair bipartisan consideration now.
I am very glad that President Obama has nominated someone who is clearly qualified for the highest court in the land. I supported him along with an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans when he was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and I look forward to meeting with him and hearing his thoughts on how he would approach the important role of Supreme Court justice.
I will evaluate Judge Garland and make my decision using my long-held standards for Supreme Court nominations. I will examine his record and his experience and I am hoping to be able to listen to his testimony at a hearing. I will want to make sure he meets the basic standards of honesty, ethics, qualifications, and fairness. I will evaluate if he will be independent, even-handed in deciding cases, and if he will uphold our rights and our liberties—including the critical right to privacy. And I will do everything I can to make sure the questions, values, and priorities of Washington state families are heard in this process.
The Constitution is very clear about the process for filling Supreme Court vacancies. Now that the President has upheld his Constitutional responsibility to nominate a candidate to fill this Supreme Court vacancy, it's the Senate's job to carefully evaluate him and give him a vote. Senate Republicans need to put partisan politics aside for the good of the country and work with Senate Democrats and the President to give Judge Garland fair consideration and fill this vacancy responsibly. They should walk away from their threats to smear this nominee and their refusal to even meet with him. People across the country are expecting Senate Republicans to do their job, and I am hoping that Republican leaders will listen."[215]
West Virginia
Shelley Moore Capito (R) The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "Before a Supreme Court justice is confirmed to a lifetime position on the bench, West Virginians and the American people should have the ability to weigh in at the ballot box this November. My position does not change with the naming of a nominee today.
Anyone confirmed to the Supreme Court will play a key role in decisions on monumental issues ranging from EPA regulations that affect West Virginia’s energy sector, to immigration and Second Amendment rights. With just a few months until the election, West Virginians should have an opportunity to express their views and elect a new president who will select the Supreme Court justice."[216]
Joe Manchin (D)
Senator Manchin released a statement on May 20, 2016, in response to an ad run by the Judicial Crisis Network. In the statement, which was printed in part by The Washington Times, Senator Manchin said,[217]
| “ |
I personally have real concerns about Judge Garland’s record, and I’d like the chance to hear every member of the Senate question him on the issues that matter to West Virginia, like our 2nd Amendment rights and his position on the Clean Power Plan ... In case anyone doubts my position, let me be very clear; especially to those outsiders who never grew up in West Virginia. If Judge Garland’s answers are vague, if he doesn’t make clear he will uphold the Constitution and act in West Virginia’s best interest, then I will vote against him — irrespective of what Democrats, the president, or anyone in Washington wants ... [9] |
” |
In statements following a town hall meeting in Charleston, W. Va., which were printed by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Senator Manchin said of his constituents' concerns regarding a potential Garland vote on the Supreme Court, "If they think he's going to be voting pro-abortion all the time, anti-gun all the time, it'd be a big problem."[218]
The senator wrote an editorial in the Charleston Gazette-Mail on March 22, 2016, in support of Senate action.[219]
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination: "I look forward to evaluating Merrick Garland’s qualifications to be a justice on the Supreme Court ... Senators have a constitutional obligation to advise and consent on a nominee to fill this Supreme Court vacancy. During the vetting process, I’d like to hear the thoughts and concerns of West Virginians, and I encourage them to review his qualifications themselves."[220]
Wisconsin
Tammy Baldwin (D)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"I am pleased that the President has done his job and offered a nominee with strong federal judicial experience.
I now plan to do my job by reviewing Judge Garland’s experience and qualifications for our highest court. I also look forward to meeting with Judge Garland. I hope my Republican colleagues will do the same thing.
In the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation, I would encourage my Republican colleagues to give Judge Garland fair consideration. To ignore this nomination is wrong and irresponsible. Senate Republicans need to do their job and provide Judge Garland a hearing and an up-or-down vote. I believe the American people deserve to have a full and functioning Supreme Court working for them.[221]
Ron Johnson (R)
Senator Johnson released the following statement after meeting with Judge Garland on May 10, 2016:[222]
| “ |
I enjoyed a very cordial meeting with Judge Garland. My advice to President Obama and the rest of my Senate colleagues has not changed. Let the American people have a voice in the composition of the Supreme Court. Instead of a lame duck president and Senate nominating and confirming, a new president and Senate – elected by the people only a few months from now – should make that important decision. I can’t think of a fairer or more democratic process. [9] |
” |
"We're going to withhold our consent because I'm doing my job to protect Wisconsinites' second amendment rights to keep and bear arms as well as their first amendment rights, freedom of speech and religious liberties."[223]
"In just 8 months, the American people will decide direction of the country. Give them a voice on the direction of court. #SCOTUSnominee"[224]
"I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate ... America needs Supreme Court justices who share Justice Scalia's commitment to applying the Constitution as written and to the freedom it secures."[225]
"Justice Scalia’s wisdom and his understanding of our Constitution made him an irreplaceable voice for liberty on the Supreme Court. In choosing another justice for the court, we must look for his kind of unwavering devotion to freedom and the rule of law that is the foundation of our nation."[226]
Senator Johnson was interviewed regarding the Supreme Court vacancy:[227]
Wyoming
John Barrasso (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"A president on his way out of the White House should not make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. The American people will soon decide our next president. That person should get to choose the next Supreme Court nominee. Give the people a voice, and let them chart the course for the court and the country."[228]
Mike Enzi (R)
The senator released the following statement on March 16, 2016, regarding the Garland nomination:
"The lifetime appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is not a decision to be made lightly. History has shown that a justice’s role in shaping our legal understanding of the Constitution is immensely powerful and should not be underestimated.
President Obama has ignored the Constitution when it has suited his agenda and he’s expanded executive power at the expense of the legislative branch. The Supreme Court has recognized these abuses and has played an important role in reining in President Obama’s excessive executive actions. Congress is set up to be an equal branch of government to the executive and judicial. The Constitution gives the Senate the right to make decisions on a Supreme Court nominee. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has announced the committee’s intention to exercise its constitutional authority to withhold consent on a nominee submitted by this president.
I believe the American people should decide the direction of the Supreme Court."[229]
See also
- Supreme Court vacancy, 2017: An overview
- Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland
- Impact of the 2016 election on the United States Supreme Court
- 2016 presidential candidates on the death of Antonin Scalia and the Supreme Court vacancy
- Process to fill the vacated seat of Justice Antonin Scalia
- What happens to this term's major SCOTUS cases in a 4-4 split?
- Antonin Scalia
- United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
- Presidential candidates, 2016
- Merrick Garland
Footnotes
- ↑ San Antonio-Express News, "Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch," accessed February 13, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Justice Antonin Scalia, Who Led a Conservative Renaissance on the Supreme Court, Is Dead at 79," February 13, 2016
- ↑ NPR, "President Obama To Announce Merrick Garland As Supreme Court Nominee," accessed March 16, 2016
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit, "Merrick B. Garland," accessed August 22, 2013
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Profiles of three possible successors to Justice John Paul Stevens," April 10, 2010
- ↑ AL.com, "Merrick Garland Alabama reaction: Shelby, Sessions opposed to hearings for Obama's SCOTUS pick," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Richard Shelby, "Shelby: The American people deserve a voice in SCOTUS nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, "Sen. Murkowski will meet with Obama’s Supreme Court nominee; Sen. Sullivan refuses," March 27, 2016
- ↑ 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16 9.17 9.18 9.19 9.20 9.21 9.22 9.23 9.24 9.25 9.26 9.27 9.28 9.29 9.30 9.31 9.32 9.33 9.34 9.35 9.36 9.37 9.38 9.39 9.40 9.41 9.42 9.43 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Senator Lisa Murkowski, "Murkowski statement on U.S. Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Dan Sullivan, "Sullivan issues statement on nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Sen. Jeff Flake on Donald Trump, SCOTUS confirmation (full interview)," May 9, 2016
- ↑ Senator Jeff Flake, "Flake statement on meeting with Supreme Court nominee," April 14, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Sen. Jeff Flake on agreeing to meet Supreme Court nominee," March 17, 2016
- ↑ Politico, "GOP Supreme Court blockade showing early cracks," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Jeff Flake, "Flake: No Scalia replacement this year," February 22, 2016
- ↑ Senator John McCain, "McCain on President Obama naming Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator John Boozman, "Boozman statement on meeting with Judge Garland," April 5, 2016
- ↑ Senator John Boozman, "Boozman statement on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Tom Cotton, "Cotton statement on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Facebook, "Senator Barbara Boxer," May 25, 2016
- ↑ Senator Barbara Boxer, "Boxer statement on nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Senator Feinstein on Merrick Garland nomination," March 17, 2016
- ↑ Senator Dianne Feinstein, "Feinstein statement on Merrick Garland nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Michael Bennet, "Bennet statement on meeting with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," April 14, 2016
- ↑ KRDO.com, "Bennet on SCOTUS vacancy: 'We should have a vote'," March 31, 2016
- ↑ Senator Michael Bennet, "Bennet statement on Supreme Court nomination of Judge Merrick Garland," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Cory Gardner, "Gardner statement on Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Sen Blumenthal meets with SCOTUS nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland," April 7, 2016
- ↑ Senator Richard Blumenthal, "Blumenthal statement after meeting with Chief Judge Merrick Garland," April 7, 2016
- ↑ Senator Richard Blumenthal, "Blumenthal statement on the nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Chris Murphy, "Murphy remarks on his meeting with Judge Merrick Garland," May 18, 2016
- ↑ Senator Christopher Murphy, "Murphy statement on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Tom Carper, "Carper statement on Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Christopher Coons, "Senator Coons meets with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, urges Senate to hold hearings," April 7, 2016
- ↑ Senator Christopher Coons, "Senator Coons' statement on Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Senator Coons urges colleagues to hold hearing on SCOTUS nominee," February 26, 2016
- ↑ The Miami Herald, "Bill Nelson meets with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," April 27, 2016
- ↑ Senator Bill Nelson, "Sen. Bill Nelson's statement on the President's nominee to the Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Politico, "More Republicans agree to meet with Garland," March 31, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Marco Rubio wouldn't back Garland in any situation," March 17, 2016
- ↑ Senator Johnny Isakson, "Isakson statement on Obama's Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Senator David Perdue addresses Supreme Court nominations on the floor of the Senate," September 7, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Senator Perdue on Supreme Court nominee," March 17, 2016
- ↑ Senator David Perdue, "Senator David Perdue statement on Supreme Court vacancy," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Honolulu Civil Beat, "Judge Garland 'Impressive', says Hirono," May 18, 2016
- ↑ Senator Mazie Hirono, "Hirono: Republican failure to act on Supreme Court nominee unprecedented," March 3, 2016
- ↑ Senator Brian Schatz, "Schatz meets with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," May 10, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Schatz to Senate Republicans: Do Your Job," March 17, 2016
- ↑ Senator Brian Schatz, "Schatz statement on the nomination of Merrick B. Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Mike Crapo, "Crapo statement on Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Think Progress, "GOP senators are already saying they will block Merrick Garland's nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Durbin: It's unacceptable Senate Republicans won't give Supreme Court nominee a hearing and vote," September 14, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Durbin: Judge Garland is unquestionably qualified to serve on the Supreme Court " April 6, 2016
- ↑ Senator Dick Durbin, "Durbin statement on nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ United Press International, "GOP Sen. Kirk says he could approve Garland for Supreme Court," March 30, 2016
- ↑ The "Big" John Howell Show, "Senator Mark Kirk - R-IL," March 18, 2016
- ↑ Senator Mark Kirk, "Kirk statement on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Dan Coats, "Coats statement on President Obama's Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Indianapolis Star', "Donnelly says meeting with Supreme Court nominee is part of his job," March 28, 2016
- ↑ Senator Joe Donnelly, "Donnelly statement on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Sen. Joe Donnelly on Carrier, Supreme Court nomination," March 4, 2016
- ↑ Senator Joni Ernst, "Ernst: Give the people a voice in SCOTUS debate," March 16, 2016
- ↑ NBC News, "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley: I won't bend to pressure on Supreme Court pick," April 7, 2016
- ↑ KSFY-TV, "Senator Grassley talks US Supreme Court nomination," March 28, 2016
- ↑ Senator Chuck Grassley, "Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years: "The Biden rules"," February 22, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "The Biden rules," February 23, 2016
- ↑ Senator Chuck Grassley, "Grassley statement on the President's nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Garden City Telegram, "Moran: Obama’s visit to Cuba ‘premature’," March 21, 2016
- ↑ Topeka Capital-Journal, "Kansas senators Pat Roberts, Jerry Moran won't consider Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Pat Roberts, "Roberts statement on President's Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ PJ Media, "Warren: Senate Republicans engaging in 'naked politics'," April 9, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "McConnel: Garland will not be considered by Senate," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Mitch McConnell, "McConnell on Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Think Progress, "Rand Paul" It's a 'conflict of interest' for Obama to nominate a Supreme Court justice," February 15, 2016
- ↑ The Advocate, "David Vitter, Bill Cassidy criticize President Obama's Merrick Garland nomination for Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator David Vitter, "Vitter statement on SCOTUS nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Senate Republicans stick to refusing any Supreme Court," (sic) March 10, 2016
- ↑ Senator Susan Collins, "U.S. Senator Susan Collins meets with Chief Judge Merrick Garland," April 5, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Senator urges GOP to meet with SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland," April 7, 2016
- ↑ Maine Public Broadcasting Network, "Collins: 'Not fair and not right' for GOP to refuse hearing for Supreme Court nominee," March 23, 2016
- ↑ Senator Susan Collins, "U.S. Senator Collins' statement on nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Angus King, "King meets with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," April 13, 2016
- ↑ Senator Angus King, "King calls on Senate to consider Supreme Court nominee," March 3, 2016
- ↑ Politico, "Some Dems won't commit to Garland," March 30, 2016
- ↑ Senator Ben Cardin, "Cardin statement on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Barbara Mikulski, "Mikulski calls on Senate to hold hearings & vote on President' Supreme Court nominee," (sic) March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Ed Markey, "Senator Markey meets with Supreme Court nominee Judge Merrick Garland," May 11, 2016
- ↑ Senator Ed Markey, "Senator Markey statement on nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Steering Committee SCOTUS," April 6, 2016
- ↑ Senator Elizabeth Warren, "Senator Warren's statement on the Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Gary Peters, "Peters statement on meeting with U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Merrick Garland," April 28, 2016
- ↑ Senator Gary Peters, "Peters statement on President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Debbie Stabenow, "Senator Stabenow meets with Supreme Court nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland," April 19, 2016
- ↑ Senator Debbie Stebenow, "Senator Stabenow statement on announcement of Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Al Franken, "Sen. Franken meets with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," March 30, 2016
- ↑ Star Tribune, "Minnesota Democrats urge Senate vote on Supreme Court pick," March 24, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Franken calls GOP obstructionism "Absurd" and provides examples," March 17, 2016
- ↑ Senator Al Franken, "Sen. Franken's statement on President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland for U.S. Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ PJ Media, "Warren: Senate Republicans engaging in 'naked politics'," April 9, 2016
- ↑ Time, "Sen. Amy Klobuchar: 9 questions for the next justice," March 23, 2016
- ↑ Senator Amy Klobuchar, "After President announces Supreme Court nominee, Klobuchar calls on U.S. Senate to hold hearings and vote," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Thad Cochran, "Cochran statement on Obama's Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Wicker discusses Obama's Supreme Court nomination with CNN's Erin Burnett," March 18, 2016
- ↑ Senator Roger Wicker, "Wicker statement on Obama's Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ KSDK-TV, "Sen. Blunt won't meet with Obama court nominee," April 6, 2016
- ↑ Senator Roy Blunt, "Senator Blunt statement on the President's Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "McCaskill says Obama court nominee wouldn't be 'activist judge in any sense'," April 13, 2016
- ↑ Senator Claire McCaskill, "McCaskill statement on Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Steve Daines, "Daines statement on President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Jon Tester, "Tester meets Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," May 12, 2016
- ↑ Missoulian, "Sen. Tester, other panelists speak at UM on US Supreme Court vacancy," March 24, 2016
- ↑ Senator Jon Tester, "Tester statement on SCOTUS nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ KMTV, "Nebraska, Iowa congressional delegation reacts to Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Ben Sasse, "Sasse to President: you and nominee must reject pen and phone," February 18, 2016
- ↑ Senator Dean Heller, "Heller statement on Supreme Court vacancy," February 17, 2016
- ↑ Senator Harry Reid, "Reid statement on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Kelly Ayotte, "Ayotte statement on meeting with Supreme Court nominee," April 13, 2016
- ↑ The Hill, "Ayotte to meet with SCOTUS nominee next week," April 4, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Kelly Ayotte on Merrick Garland's nomination and the Supreme Court vacancy," March 21, 2016
- ↑ NH1 News, "Steinhauser: Ayotte tells NH1 News she'll meet with Garland to explain why nomination must wait for next president," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Kelly Ayotte, "Ayotte statement on Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Jeanne Shaheen, "Shaheen meets with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," April 5, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Senator Shaheen calls for Senate to do its job and consider Supreme Court nominee Judge Garland," March 30, 2016
- ↑ New Hampshire Union-Leader, "Shaheen urges colleagues to start moving forward on Supreme Court nomination," March 30, 2016
- ↑ Senator Jeanne Shaheen, "Shaheen statement on the President's nominee to the Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Sen. Booker meets with federal Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," April 13, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Senator Cory Booker on the Nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court," March 17, 2016
- ↑ Senator Cory Booker, "Booker statement on nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court of the United States," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Robert Menendez,, "Menendez meets with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," April 21, 2016
- ↑ Senator Robert Menendez, "Menendez statement on POTUS SCOTUS nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Martin Heinrich, "Heinrich meets with U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, urges Republicans to do their job," May 19, 2016
- ↑ Senator Martin Heinrich, "Heinrich statement on U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee Merrick Garland," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Heinrich presses Senate Republicans to act on Supreme Court vacancy," February 25, 2016
- ↑ Senator Tom Udall, "Udall statement after meeting with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," May 18, 2016
- ↑ Senator Tom Udall, "Udall statement on nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, "Gillibrand statement on meeting with Supreme Court nominee Judge Merrick Garland," March 30, 2016
- ↑ Twitter, "Senator Kirsten Gillibrand," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Twitter, "Senator Kirsten Gillibrand," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Politico, "Some Dems won't commit yet to Garland," March 30, 2016
- ↑ Syracuse.com, "Schumer: U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland will change GOP minds," March 22, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer says Republicans who meet Merrick Garland will like Supreme Court nominee," March 22, 2016
- ↑ Washington Examiner, "Schumer: If Garland can't be confirmed, 'no one can'," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Richard Burr, "Burr statement on Supreme Court nominee: American people deserve a voice," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Thom Tillis, "Tillis statement on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Heidi Heitkamp, "Heitkamp meets with U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Merrick Garland," April 7, 2016
- ↑ Senator Heidi Heitkamp, "Heitkamp: Senate needs to hold hearing and up or down vote on U.S. Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator John Hoeven, "The Senate should give the people a voice on the next Supreme Court appointment," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Sen. Brown meeting SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland," April 7, 2016
- ↑ Senator Sherrod Brown, "Brown statement on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Rob Portman, "Portman statement on meeting with Judge Garland," April 14, 2016
- ↑ The Cincinnati Enquirer, "Portman: Why Supreme Court choice should wait," March 18, 2016
- ↑ Senator Rob Portman, "Portman statement on Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator James Lankford, "Senators Inhofe, Lankford statement on meeting with Judge Garland," April 27, 2016
- ↑ The Oklahoman, "Inhofe, Lankford: Many reasons not to take up Supreme Court nominee," March 27, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Sen. Inhofe: I am not going to support any Obama nominee," March 17, 2016
- ↑ The Ada News, "Inhofe: GOP won't relent on nomination," April 9, 2016
- ↑ Senator James Inhofe, "Inhofe statement on SCOTUS nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Democrats welcome Supreme Court nominee to Capitol Hill. Republicans -- not so much," March 17, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Senator Lankford's video response to the Supreme Court nomination," March 18, 2016
- ↑ Senator James Lankford, "Senator Lankford statement on President Obama's Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Senator Lankford speaks about the Supreme Court vacancy on the Senate floor," March 9, 2016
- ↑ Senator Jeff Merkley, "Merkley meets with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," May 19, 2016
- ↑ Senator Jeff Merkley, "Merkley statement on Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Merkley to Senate GOP: Do Your Job," March 9, 2016
- ↑ KXL-FM, "Senators from Oregon want hearings for Supreme Court Justice nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Bob Casey, "Casey statement on nomination of Merrick Garland for United States Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Senate Republicans: Do your job," March 3, 2016
- ↑ Pennlive.com, "Here's why I'm opposing Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination: Pat Toomey," April 15, 2016
- ↑ Senator Pat Toomey, "Toomey will tell Judge Garland American people should weigh in," March 24, 2016
- ↑ Senator Pat Toomey, "Toomey releases statement on nomination of Merrick Garland to Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Jack Reed, "Reed meets with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," May 17, 2016
- ↑ Senator Jack Reed, "Reed statement on nomination of Merrick Garland to U.S. Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, "Whitehouse statement on meeting with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," April 6, 2016
- ↑ Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, "Whitehouse congratulates Merrick Garland on nomination to Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Lindsey Graham, "Graham on Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Vox, "John McCain just did what his best friend in the Senate warned Republicans not to do," October 18, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Lindsey Graham: I doubt Obama will choose Antonin Scalia's successor," February 13, 2016
- ↑ Senator Tim Scott, "Scott: The next President should fill open seat on the Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Mike Rounds, "Rounds statement on meeting with Judge Garland," April 27, 2016
- ↑ Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) speaks on President Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator John Thune, "Thune statement on Obama nominee to Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Lamar Alexander, "Alexander statement on the President's Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ The Commercial Appeal, "Alexander, Corker: Next president should appoint next Supreme Court justice," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator John Cornyn, "Cornyn statement on nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Cornyn: American people should decide future of Supreme Court," March 8, 2016
- ↑ Senator Ted Cruz, "Sen. Cruz: We should not vote on any nominee until the next president is sworn into office," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Ted Cruz On Supreme Court, Justice Scalia," February 15, 2016
- ↑ Senator Orrin Hatch, "Hatch comments on meeting with Judge Merrick Garland," May 26, 2016
- ↑ The Deseret News, "Orrin Hatch: My meeting with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," May 26, 2016
- ↑ Fox 13 News, "Draft of Sen. Hatch’s op-ed about discussion with Merrick Garland published before meeting occurred," May 26, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Let voters decide the Court's future," March 28, 2016
- ↑ Bloomberg View "Senate's job is to protect the Supreme Court," March 22, 2016
- ↑ Senator Orrin Hatch, "Hatch speaks on Garland nomination, reaffirms need to defer consideration," March 17, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Hatch: Senate should wait to fill Scalia’s Seat until after election," February 25, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Sen Lee on nomination of Merrick Garland," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Mike Lee, "Lee reaffirms commitment to let people pick next Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Patrick Leahy, "176 days after Judge Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court, Senator Leahy addresses the Senate about continuing Republican obstruction of the nomination," September 8, 2016
- ↑ NewsOK.com, "Sen. Patrick Leahy: U.S. Senate needs to act on high court nomination," March 30, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Senator Leahy meets with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," March 17, 2016
- ↑ Senator Patrick Leahy, "Comment of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, on the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court of the United States," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Bernie Sanders, "Sanders statement on President Obama's Supreme Court nomination," March 16, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Bernie Sanders responds to GOP threats to block any Supreme Court nomination," February 14, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Kaine urges colleagues to do their jobs, hold hearing & vote on Supreme Court nomination," April 5, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Kaine says GOP obstruction on SCOTUS nominee Garland is about accountability," April 6, 2016
- ↑ The Virginian-Pilot, "Tim Kaine: Senate owes Garland a hearing," March 29, 2016
- ↑ Senator Tim Kaine, "Kaine statement on the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Fairfax News, "Warner meets with Supreme Court nominee Garland," April 13, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "Sen. Mark Warner to GOP colleagues: 'Do your job'," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Mark Warner, "Sen. Mark Warner on SCOTUS nomination of Merrick Garland," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Maria Cantwell, "Cantwell meets with Supreme Court nominee Judge Merrick Garland," June 9, 2016
- ↑ Cantwell to Senate Republicans: Do Your Job," March 17, 2016
- ↑ Senator Maria Cantwell, "Cantwell statement on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Patty Murray, "Senator Murray on meeting with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland: “A strong nominee who is absolutely qualified to serve on the Supreme Court," April 13, 2016
- ↑ Senator Patty Murray, "Senator Patty Murray's statement on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Shelley Moore Capito, "Capito statement on Supreme Court nominee announcement," March 16, 2016
- ↑ The Washington Times, "Dem senator voices 'real concerns' over guns, environmental record of Obama SCOTUS pick," May 20, 2016
- ↑ Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Senator hears voters' divided views at town hall on Garland," March 27, 2016
- ↑ Charleston Gazette-Mail, "Sen. Joe Manchin: time for Senate to fulfill its duties," March 22, 2016
- ↑ Senator Joe Manchin, "Manchin urges West Virginians to send thoughts on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Tammy Baldwin, "U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin statement on President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Ron Johnson, "Johnson statement on meeting with Judge Garland," May 10, 2016
- ↑ WEAU-TV, "Sen. Johnson discusses opposition to Supreme Court nominee," March 23, 2016
- ↑ Twitter, "Senator Ron Johnson," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, "Johnson, Feingold differ on Obama nominating Scalia's successor," February 14, 2016
- ↑ Senator Ron Johnson, "Johnson mourns loss of Justice Scalia," February 13, 2016
- ↑ YouTube, "U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson on filling the Supreme Court vacancy," February 24, 2016
- ↑ Senator John Barrasso, "Barasso statement on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland," March 16, 2016
- ↑ Senator Mike Enzi, "The American people should decide on next U.S. Supreme Court justice," February 25, 2016
