Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination

Merrick Garland, nominated to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States.

On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia on February 13.[1] Scalia's death led to an unusual situation in which a Democratic president had the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court nominee while the Republicans control the United States Senate; prior to Scalia's death, such a situation last occurred when a Senate Republican majority confirmed Grover Cleveland's nomination of Rufus Wheeler Peckham in 1895.[2] Conversely, in February 1988, during an election year, the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Anthony Kennedy, who was the Republican President Ronald Reagan's nominee for the Supreme Court, though Kennedy had been nominated in November 1987.[3]

Political commentators widely recognized Scalia as one of the more conservative members of the Court, and noted that a more liberal replacement could shift the Court's ideological balance for many years into the future. Consequently, Republican Senate leaders announced that they planned to hold no vote on any potential nominee until a new president was elected. Senate Democrats responded that there was sufficient time to vote on a nominee before the election.[4]

Background

The late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.
See also: Antonin Scalia

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan nominated D.C. Circuit Judge Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy caused by the elevation of William Rehnquist to Chief Justice. Scalia was unanimously confirmed by the Senate and became a part of the court's conservative bloc, often supporting originalist and textualist positions.[5] On February 13, 2016, Justice Scalia was found dead at the Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Texas.[6][7] Scalia's death marked only the second time in sixty years that a Supreme Court justice had died in office, the other being Chief Justice Rehnquist in 2005.[8] Scalia's death was also the seventh occasion since 1900 in which a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States was vacant during a year in which a presidential election was set to occur.[9]

Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives the president the power to nominate justices to the Supreme Court, subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate.[10] At the time of Scalia's death, the sitting president was and still is President Obama, a member of the Democratic Party, while the Republican Party currently holds a 54–46 seat majority in the Senate.[11] Because of the composition of the Supreme Court at the time of Scalia's death, and the belief that President Obama could replace Scalia with a much more liberal successor, some believed that an Obama appointee could potentially swing the Court in a liberal direction for many years to come, with potentially far-reaching political consequences.[12]

Ensuing political conflict

The situation has led to conflict between the White House and Republican leadership. A number of Republicans have claimed that political precedent prevents a U.S. president from appointing judges near the end of his term,[13] and threatened that the Republican-controlled Senate may delay the appointment of a new justice until after a new president has been inaugurated.[14] Meanwhile, Democrats have countered that the U.S. Constitution obligates the president and Senate to nominate and confirm a new Supreme Court justice in a timely manner. As there were 11 months remaining in President Obama's term at the time of Scalia's death, the Democrats argue that no precedent exists for such a lengthy delay, as previous presidents have nominated individuals in election years.[15] Democrats also argue that even if such a precedent exists, President Obama's term has sufficient time remaining such that the precedent should not apply. The precedent, known as the Thurmond rule, dates back to the President Lyndon B. Johnson's 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas to the Supreme Court, and has been inconsistently applied.[16][17]

Should there be a Senate recess of sufficient length, the president has constitutional authority to make a recess appointment of a new Supreme Court justice. Any justice so appointed would be eligible to remain on the Court until either the end of the subsequent Congress's first session, or until the Senate consents to a permanent replacement. Members of the Obama administration have stated that President Obama has no plans to make any such recess appointment.[18]

On February 23, 2016, the 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell stating their intention to withhold consent on any nominee made by President Obama, and that no hearings would occur until after January 20, 2017, when the next president takes office.[19] The 11 members are Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, Iowa;[20] Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, Utah; Jeff Sessions, Alabama; Lindsey Graham, South Carolina; John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, Texas; Jeff Flake, Arizona; David Vitter, Louisiana; David Perdue, Georgia; and Thom Tillis, North Carolina. By March 30, 29 Republicans had said they would not consider Judge Garland after the November election: Lamar Alexander, Tennessee, John Barrasso, Wyoming, John Boozman, Arkansas, Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia, Daniel Coats, Indiana, Thad Cochran, Mississippi, John Cornyn, Texas, Tom Cotton, Arkansas, Michael D. Crapo, Idaho, Ted Cruz, Texas, Steve Daines, Montana, Joni Ernst, Iowa, Cory Gardner, Colorado, Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, Charles E. Grassley, Iowa, James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma, Johnny Isakson, Georgia, Mike Lee, Utah, Mitch McConnell, Kentucky, David Perdue, Georgia, Rob Portman, Ohio, Pat Roberts, Kansas, Mike Rounds, South Dakota, Marco Rubio, Florida, Tim Scott, South Carolina, Richard C. Shelby, Alabama, John Thune, South Dakota, Patrick J. Toomey, Pennsylvania and David Vitter, Louisiana.[21]

Scholars and lawyers urging Senate to consider a nominee

On February 24, 2016, a group of U.S. constitutional-law scholars sent an open letter to President Obama and the U.S. Senate urging the president to nominate a candidate to fill the vacancy and the Senate to hold hearings and vote on the nominee.[22] The letter, which was organized by the progressive American Constitution Society, stated that it would be "unprecedented" for the Senate to fail to consider a Supreme Court nominee, and "would leave a vacancy that would undermine the ability of the Supreme Court to carry out its constitutional duties."[22] The signatories wrote: "the Senate's constitutional duty to 'advise and consent'—the process that has come to include hearings, committee votes, and floor votes—has no exception for election years. In fact, over the course of American history, there have been 24 instances in which presidents in the last year of a term have nominated individuals for the Supreme Court and the Senate confirmed 21 of these nominees."[22][23] Among the 33 professors signing the letter were Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California, Irvine School of Law; Adam Winkler of the UCLA School of Law; Kermit Roosevelt III of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, and Gene Nichol of the University of North Carolina School of Law.[23]

In a letter sent to President Obama on March 3, 2016, a different group of scholars of American history, politics, and the law wrote to President Obama to "express our dismay at the unprecedented breach of norms by the Senate majority in refusing to consider a nomination for the Supreme Court made by a president with eleven months to serve in the position."[24] The scholars wrote that:

It is technically in the power of the Senate to engage in aggressive denial on presidential nominations. But we believe that the Framers' construction of the process of nominations and confirmation to federal courts, including the Senate's power of "advice and consent," does not anticipate or countenance an obdurate refusal by the body to acknowledge or consider a president's nominee, especially to the highest court in the land. The refusal to hold hearings and deliberate on a nominee at this level is truly unprecedented and, in our view, dangerous...
The Constitution gives the Senate every right to deny confirmation to a presidential nomination. But denial should come after the Senate deliberates over the nomination, which in contemporary times includes hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and full debate and votes on the Senate floor. Anything less than that, in our view, is a serious and, indeed, unprecedented breach of the Senate’s best practices and noblest traditions for much of our nation's history.[24]

Signatories to this letter included, among others, Thomas E. Mann, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution; Norman J. Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; Pamela S. Karlan of Stanford Law School; Yale Law School professor Harold Hongju Koh; Geoffrey R. Stone of the University of Chicago Law School; and historian James M. McPherson of Princeton University.[24]

On March 7, 2016, a group of 356 law professors and other legal scholars released a letter (organized through the Alliance for Justice) to the Senate leadership of both parties urging them "to fulfill your constitutional duty to give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a prompt and fair hearing and a timely vote." The letter-writers argued that Senate Republicans' announcement that they would refuse to consider any Obama nominee was a "preemptive abdication of duty" that "is contrary to the process the framers envisioned in Article II, and threatens to diminish the integrity of our democratic institutions and the functioning of our constitutional government."[25] Among the signatories to this letter were prominent law professors Charles Ogletree, Kenji Yoshino, and Laurence Tribe.[25]

On March 9, 2016, in a letter to Obama and Senate leadership, a group of almost 250 prominent corporate lawyers urged the Senate to hold hearings on the president's nominee.[26] The letter stated that "When a vacancy on the court arises, the Constitution is clear ... Article II, Section 2 states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court' ... Though the Senate may ultimately choose not to consent to the president's nominee, it would be unprecedented for the senate to refuse to perform its ‘advice and consent’ role in this context. Not only does the Constitution direct the sitting president to nominate an individual to fill a vacancy on the court no matter whether it is an election year, nearly one third of all presidents have nominated a justice in an election year who was eventually confirmed."[26] The letter, organized by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,[27] also expressed concern about the "profound effect" about the effects of an under-staffed Court on the national economy, particularly in close cases.[26] Signatories to the letter came from a number of national law firms, and well as counsel for Google Inc..[27]

On March 10, 2016, the Democratic attorneys general of 19 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia released a letter to Obama and Senate leadership in both parties calling for prompt Senate action on the president's nominee.[28] The letter stated that "the states and territories have a unique and pressing interest in a full and functioning Supreme Court" and that refusal to consider a nominee would "undermine the rule of law and ultimately impair the functioning of state governments."[28]

In March 2015, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr., a Republican, and former Connecticut U.S. senator Joseph Lieberman, an independent, both co-chairs of the problem-solving group No Labels, wrote that "There is no modern precedent for the blockade that Senate Republicans have put in place. Even highly-contentious nomination battles in the past, including those over Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas, followed the normal process of hearings and an up-or-down vote. Leaving the current blockade in place could leave a seat on the Court vacant for the remainder of this term and perhaps the next as well, which could leave major cases in limbo until 2018. That is simply not acceptable. We cannot let today’s crisis of leadership turn into a full-blown constitutional crisis."[29]

John Joseph Gibbons and Patricia Wald, the former chief judges of the Third Circuit and D.C. Circuit, respectively, warned that the Senate's refusal to act on a Supreme Court nomination "would set a dangerous precedent, and invite attempts to extend it to other situations where the Executive and the Legislative branches are in political conflict with one another." Gibbons was appointed by a Republican president, while Wald was appointed by a Democratic president.[29][30]

Scholarly and legal counterarguments

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin argued the Constitution imposes no such duty upon the Senate to hold confirmation hearings and to give a nominee an up-or-down vote.[31] Jonathan H. Adler agreed, writing that while he personally has "long argued that the Senate should promptly consider and vote on every presidential judicial nominee, ... there is no textual or historical basis" for the contention that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to do.[32] Eugene Volokh argues that there has not been a "constant practice of Senators agreeing that every nominee should be considered without regard to there being a looming election" and that "in the absence of such a practice, we come down to more results-oriented politics."[33] George Mason University law professor David Bernstein argued that while "preexisting constitutional norms" would suggest that "hearings and eventual votes on Supreme Court nominees" were mandatory, this norm is not required by the constitutional text and has been undermined by recent political practice.[34] Bernstein also noted that a Democrat-controlled Senate in 1960, in reaction to President Eisenhower's 1956 recess appointment of William J. Brennan, Jr., passed a Senate resolution "Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business."[35] Noah Feldman, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, has said "it’s hard to argue that this requires the [Senate] to put a nominee to a vote."[36] Vikram Amar, constitutional law professor and dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, wrote that "the text of the Constitution certainly does not use any language suggesting the Senate has a legal obligation to do anything," but that the "absolutist position" taken by Senate Republicans presents "grave risks" of escalating the judicial-appointment process into "extreme moves and countermoves."[37]

Pending 2016 rulings, 4–4 deadlocks, and effects on determination of which cases to hear

For cases that were not decided before his death, Justice Scalia's votes will not be counted, and the cases will be decided by the remaining eight members of the Court.[38] When the Court issues any ruling with votes split 4–4, the Court does not publish a written opinion with respect to the merits of the case and the ruling of the lower court is affirmed, although the Court's affirmance have no effect as precedent in future cases.[38][39]

Citing the Court's practices following the death of Justice Robert H. Jackson in 1954, Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog suggested in February 2016 that the Court is more likely to set evenly-divided cases for reargument after a new justice is appointed to the Court.[40] However, the Court went on to split 4–4 in three cases—Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, an important case on the funding of public-sector labor unions;[41][42] Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore, a case on the application of gender discrimination laws to loan guarantors;[43][44] and Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, in which the Court deadlocked on the question of whether Nevada v. Hall should be overruled.[45]

Observers noted that with a vacancy likely to persist for some time, the Court has shown a reluctance to accept new cases; "the slow pace in filling the calendar indicates an increased cautiousness considering the real possibility of 4–4 deadlocks on anything ideologically divisive."[46] From the time of Scalia's death in late February 2016 until the first week of April 2016, the Court accepted only three cases, none likely to be controversial. By contrast, over the previous five years the Court took up an average of eight cases over the same period.[46]

Nomination process

Speculation about candidates to fill vacancy

Prior to Obama's nomination of Garland, media commentators speculated about individuals who may be nominated to fill the vacancy on the Court. A number of writers argued that the Senate Republicans will continue to block the confirmation process regardless of the nominee, and suggested that Obama may as well choose a candidate for political motives. For instance, Michael Tomasky suggested that a nomination of Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar may encourage Latinos to vote in the November 2016 election and "alter the presidential race dramatically as well."[47] Tom Goldstein, arguing that "[t]he nomination itself is part of the president's legacy, even if partisan politics prevents confirmation," recommended to nominate a black woman to encourage black and female voters to participate in the election.[48] Goldstein concluded that the most likely candidate of such description was Ketanji Brown Jackson.[48]

Other commentators suggested that Obama should compromise by selecting a centrist or even moderate conservative candidate. After analyzing voting trends for Supreme Court nominees since the confirmation of Hugo Black in 1937, political scientists Charles Cameron and Jonathan Kastellec explained that "even an ideological twin of Justice Stephen Breyer—the most moderate of the court’s current liberals—would fail to get even a majority of votes in the current Senate".[49] Without naming potential nominees, Cameron and Kastellec concluded that the Senate would only approve "a highly qualified moderate."[49] In this vein, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested the nomination of Republican Governor Brian Sandoval.[50][51] However, Sandoval soon withdrew his name from consideration.[52] Zachary A. Goldfarb and Jeffrey Toobin speculated that Obama may nominate Sri Srinivasan because he "has the sort of impeccable credentials that are much beloved by the Supreme Court bar" and that his reputation as a moderate liberal may appeal to conservatives in the Senate.[53]

By early March 2016, Obama reportedly scheduled interviews with five candidates—Merrick Garland, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Jane L. Kelly, Sri Srinivasan, and Paul J. Watford—before narrowing the list down to three candidates: Srinivasan, Garland, and Watford.[54] Obama's ultimate selection of Garland was a surprise to prediction markets; on the PredictIt market, traders predicted that Srinivasan would be the nominee, trading as high as 97% on this outcome.[55]

Garland was widely seen as a leading contender for a nomination to the Supreme Court in the Obama administration following the announced retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens in 2010.[56][57][58] In 2010, Obama interviewed Garland for a Supreme Court vacancy ultimately filled by Elena Kagan.[59] At the time, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, publicly said that he had urged Obama to nominate Garland as "a consensus nominee" who would win Senate confirmation.[60][61]

On March 11, 2016 (five days before President Obama nominated Judge Garland), Senator Hatch said: "The President told me several times he's going to name a moderate, but I don't believe him ... [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants."[62] Also on March 11, 2016, Hatch said that refusal to now consider any Obama nominee to the high court was "the chickens coming home to roost", and he cited historical episodes as well as old quotations from Democratic senators to explain why.[62][63]

Nomination of Merrick Garland

On March 16, 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to fill the vacant seat on the Court.[1] At 63 years, 124 days of age, Garland is the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis F. Powell, Jr. in 1971, who was nominated by Richard Nixon at age 64 years, 32 days.[64] In a formal Rose Garden ceremony, Obama—flanked by Garland and Vice President Joe Biden—stated: "I've selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness, and excellence. Presidents do not stop working in the final year of their term; neither should a senator."[1] Obama stated: "To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn’t even deserve a hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court, when two-thirds of Americans believe otherwise—that would be unprecedented."[1] Garland then briefly spoke, stating that "fidelity to the Constitution and the law have been the cornerstone of my professional life" and promising to "continue on that course" if confirmed for the Supreme Court.[1]

Minutes after the president announced Garland's nomination, the White House released a biographical video of Garland, featured old photographs of Garland and his family, an interview with the judge, and archival footage of him at the scene of the Oklahoma City bombing, which Garland investigated.[65] In the video, Garland said: "When I'm standing with the president and he announces my nomination, I actually think it's going to feel a little bit like it's an out-of-body experience."[65]

Following Garland's nomination, Senator Hatch said: "I think well of Merrick Garland. I think he's a fine person. But his nomination doesn't in any way change current circumstances."[66] Hatch has suggested he may support the Garland nomination during a lame-duck session, following the 2016 presidential election.[67]

Two Republican senators, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, after weeks earlier expressing support for proceeding with hearings as a part of the nomination process, had reversed their positions by early April 2016, saying that they now opposed hearings on the nomination.[68] Two other Republican senators Mark Kirk of Illinois and Susan Collins of Maine have expressed support of hearings and up-or-down vote, with Collins supporting Garland's candidacy as well.

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Shear, Michael D.; Harris, Gardiner (March 16, 2016). "Obama Chooses Merrick Garland for Supreme Court". New York Times. Retrieved March 16, 2016.
  2. ↑ Savage, David G. (November 8, 2014). "Obama unlikely to alter Supreme Court ideology with Republican Senate". LA Times. Retrieved March 12, 2016.
  3. ↑ Banen, Steve (February 15, 2016). "Justice Kennedy’s confirmation debunks key GOP talking point". MSNBC. Retrieved March 16, 2016.
  4. ↑ "Remarks by the President on the Passing of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia". The White House. February 13, 2016. Retrieved February 14, 2016.
  5. ↑ Toobin, Jeffrey (2012), "Lawyers, guns, and money", in Toobin, Jeffrey, The oath: the Obama White House and the Supreme Court, New York: Doubleday, pp. 111–112, ISBN 9780385527200. Details.
  6. ↑ Liptak, Alan (February 13, 2016), "Justice Antonin Scalia, Who Led a Conservative Renaissance on the Supreme Court, Is Dead at 79", The New York Times, retrieved February 18, 2016
  7. ↑ Hennessy-Fiske, Molly (February 14, 2016). "Scalia's last moments on a Texas ranch — quail hunting to being found in 'perfect repose'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 18, 2016.
  8. ↑ Gresko, Jessica (February 14, 2016). "Scalia's death in office a rarity for modern Supreme Court". Associated Press. Retrieved February 15, 2016.
  9. ↑ Howe, Amy (February 13, 2016). "Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 18, 2016.
  10. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (February 14, 2016). "Is a recess appointment to the Court an option?". SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved February 16, 2016.
  11. ↑ Lee, Timothy B. (February 13, 2016). "The coming fight to replace Justice Scalia, explained". Vox. Retrieved February 16, 2016.
  12. ↑ Helmore, Edward (February 14, 2016). "Republicans and Democrats draw battle lines over supreme court nomination". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved February 15, 2016.
  13. ↑ "Results in key cases could change with Scalia's death". Yahoo News. Retrieved February 15, 2016.
  14. ↑ Tesfaye, Sophia. "Republicans open GOP debate with insistence Obama’s Supreme Court nominee be blocked: "It’s called delay, delay, delay!"". Salon. Retrieved February 15, 2016.
  15. ↑ Perry, Barbara. "One-third of all U.S. presidents appointed a Supreme Court justice in an election year". Washington Post. Retrieved March 9, 2016.
  16. ↑ Russell Wheeler, Judicial Confirmations: What Thurmond Rule?, Brookings Institution (March 19, 2012).
  17. ↑ Daniel Victor, What Is the 'Thurmond Rule'?, New York Times (February 13, 2016).
  18. ↑ Mallin, Alexander (February 14, 2016). "White House Rules Out Recess Appointment to Replace Justice Scalia". ABC News. Yahoo!-ABC News Network. Retrieved February 16, 2016.
  19. ↑ https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2719115/Senate-SCOTUS-Letter.pdf
  20. ↑ "Grassley on Supreme Court Nomination: ‘We have a constitutional responsibility". Des Moines, Iowa: WHO tv interview. March 1, 2016. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  21. ↑ "Where Republican Senators Standon the Supreme Court Nomination", New York Times, March 29, 2016, retrieved March 31, 2016
  22. 1 2 3 Top Constitutional Law Scholars Say No Exception to the Rule in Filling Supreme Court Vacancy in Election Year (February 24, 2016).
  23. 1 2 Statement of Constitutional Law Scholars on the Supreme Court Vacancy (February 24, 2016).
  24. 1 2 3 Tanya Somanader, Letter from the Experts: The President's Supreme Court Nominee Deserves a Chance (March 10, 2016). See also PDF version of letter.
  25. 1 2 Over 350 law professors urge senators to fulfill their constitutional duty, Alliance for Justice (March 7, 2016). See also full text of letter.
  26. 1 2 3 Martha Neil, Fill Scalia vacancy, urge nearly 250 corporate lawyers in letter to Obama and Senate leaders, ABA Journal (March 9, 2016). See also full text of letter.
  27. 1 2 Zoe Tillman, Big Law Partners, General Counsel Urge Senate Action on SCOTUS Pick, National Law Journal (March 9, 2016).
  28. 1 2 Karen Sloan & Zoe Tillman, Letters Urge Prompt Review on Any Obama Nomination, New York Law Journal (March 11, 2016). See also full text of letter.
  29. 1 2 Jon Huntsman & Joseph Lieberman, The Republican SCOTUS Blockade Is 'Not Acceptable', Time (March 25, 2016).
  30. ↑ Zoe Tillman, Former Federal Appeals Chief Judges Urge Senate to Act on Supreme Court Nominee, National Law Journal (March 14, 2016).
  31. ↑ Ilya Somin (February 17, 2016). "The Constitution does not require the Senate to give judicial nominees an up or down vote". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 21, 2016.
  32. ↑ Jonathan H. Adler (March 15, 2016). "The erroneous argument the Senate has a 'constitutional duty' to consider a Supreme Court nominee". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 21, 2016.
  33. ↑ Eugene Volokh (February 22, 2016). "Dealing with Supreme Court vacancies: Do the other party’s recent statements and actions matter?". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 21, 2016.
  34. ↑ David Bernstein (March 16, 2016). "Re: Merrick Garland, it’s a bit late for the Obama administration and its supporters to appeal to constitutional norms requiring Senate consideration". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 21, 2016.
  35. ↑ David Bernstein (February 13, 2016). "Flashback: Senate Democrats in 1960 pass resolution against election-year Supreme Court recess appointments". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 21, 2016.
  36. ↑ Noah Feldman (February 17, 2016). "Obama and Republicans Are Both Wrong About Constitution". BloombergView. Retrieved March 28, 2016.
  37. ↑ Vikram Amar (February 26, 2016). "The Grave Risks of the Senate Republicans’ Stated Refusal to Process any Supreme Court Nominee President Obama Sends Them". Verdict. Retrieved March 28, 2016.
  38. 1 2 Goldstein, Tom (February 13, 2016). "What happens to this Term’s close cases? (Updated)". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 18, 2016.
  39. ↑ Farias, Cristian (February 14, 2016). "Justice Scalia Left Undecided High-Stakes Cases That Could Change The Nation". The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 18, 2016.
  40. ↑ Goldstein, Tom (February 14, 2016). "Tie votes will lead to reargument, not affirmance". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 18, 2016.
  41. ↑ Jess Bravin, Supreme Court Struggles to Deal With 4-4 Split, Wall Street Journal (March 29, 2016).
  42. ↑ Amy Davidson, 4–4 at the Supreme Court, New Yorker (April 1, 2016).
  43. ↑ Alicia Bannon, A Supreme Breakdown: The Supreme Court's 4-4 rulings are leaving a legal muddle that only the Senate can fix, U.S. News & World Report (March 30, 2016).
  44. ↑ Josh Gerstein, SCOTUS hits first post-Scalia deadlock in credit case, Politico (March 22, 2016).
  45. ↑ Josh Gerstein, Supreme Court splits 4-4, again, in state sovereignty fight, Politico (April 19, 2016).
  46. 1 2 Lawrence Hurley, Divided U.S. Supreme Court cautious about taking new cases, Reuters (April 4, 2016).
  47. ↑ Tomasky, Michael (February 17, 2016). "The GOP’s Worst Nightmare SCOTUS Nominee". The Daily Beast. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
  48. 1 2 Goldstein, Tom (February 17, 2016). "Continued thoughts on the next nominee (and impressions of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson)". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
  49. 1 2 Cameron, Charles; Kastellec, Jonathan (February 17, 2016). "How an Obama Supreme Court nominee could win confirmation in the Senate". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
  50. ↑ Liptak, Kevin; Raju, Manu; LoBianco, Tom (February 24, 2016). "Obama offers Supreme Court hints; top Democrat suggests Republican governor". CNN. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  51. ↑ Martin, Jonathan; Healy, Patrick (February 16, 2016). "Supreme Court Path Is Littered With Pitfalls, for President and G.O.P.". The New York Times. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  52. ↑ "Brian Sandoval, Nevada Governor, Withdraws Name From Supreme Court Consideration (BREAKING)". Headlines & Global News.
  53. ↑ Goldfarb, Zachary A. (February 17, 2016). "Who will be Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court?". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
  54. ↑ Edwards, Julia (March 11, 2016). "White House narrows search to three for Supreme Court". Reuters. Retrieved March 12, 2016.
  55. ↑ Goldstein, Steve (March 16, 2016). "Wisdom in markets? Not always, as Supreme Court betting shows". MarketWatch.
  56. ↑ "Profiles of three possible successors to Justice John Paul Stevens". Los Angeles Times. April 10, 2010. Retrieved May 12, 2010.
  57. ↑ White House Prepares for Possibility of 2 Supreme Court Vacancies, ABC News February 4, 2010
  58. ↑ Jess Bravin, Democrats Divide on Voice of Possible Top-Court Pick Wall Street Journal (February 8, 2010)
  59. ↑ Shear, Michael D.; Harris, Gardiner (March 16, 2016). "Obama to Nominate Merrick Garland to Supreme Court". The New York Times. Retrieved March 16, 2016.
  60. ↑ "Republican would back Garland for Supreme Court". Reuters. May 6, 2010. Retrieved March 16, 2016.
  61. ↑ Burr, Thomas (March 16, 2016). ""White House notes Hatch called Supreme Court nominee a 'consensus' pick in 2010"". Salt Lake Tribune (Salt Lake City). Retrieved March 16, 2016.
  62. 1 2 Gizzi, John (March 13, 2016). "Orrin Hatch Says GOP Scotus Refusal Just 'The Chickens Coming Home to Roost'". NewsMax.
  63. ↑ Shepherd, Alex (March 16, 2016). "Minutes". The New Republic.
  64. ↑ "Merrick Garland Is The Oldest Supreme Court Nominee Since Nixon Was President". FiveThirtyEight. March 16, 2016.
  65. 1 2 Julie Hirschfeld Davis, White House Releases Video of Garland, New York Times (March 16, 2016).
  66. ↑ "Republican Senator Weighs In On Supreme Court Nomination". NPR.org. Retrieved 21 March 2016.
  67. ↑ Bolton, Alexander (March 16, 2016). "Hatch open to lame-duck hearing for Garland". The Hill (newspaper).
  68. ↑ "2 Republican Senators Revoke Support for Garland Hearings". New York Times. April 2, 2016.

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, May 04, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.