Sets up a fierce confirmation fight

Obama picks Merrick Garland for Supreme Court

The nomination sets up a fierce confirmation fight with Senate Republicans.

By Edward-Isaac Dovere, Sarah Wheaton and Seung Min Kim

President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the first step in what will be a ferocious battle with Senate Republicans over the future of the nation's highest court.

"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, evenhandedness and excellence" Obama said during a Rose Garden ceremony. "These qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration of leaders from both sides of the aisle."

Garland, 63, currently serves as the top judge on the influential D.C. Circuit. He's widely admired by Democrats and Republicans alike, although he wasn't unanimously confirmed for his current post. Utah’s Sen. Orrin Hatch, a key Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has urged Obama to nominate him for earlier Supreme Court vacancies, and the president pointed out Hatch's previous support in his Wednesday remarks.

Garland was confirmed by the Senate 76-23 in 1997 and five still serving Republican senators voted against him: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, as well as Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Mike Enzi of Wyoming.

Given previous opposition from powerful Republicans like McConnell and Grassley, a senior GOP aide said it would not be difficult for Republicans to stonewall Garland.

"This is an easy one. Both our Leader and Judiciary Chairman voted against him when he was confirmed before," the aide said. "And it’s a clear recognition by the White House that we mean what we say: there will be no confirmation. If they thought we were going to cave, they would have put up a much different candidate."

Still, seven current GOP senators voted to confirm Garland, and Democrats are sure to level charges of hypocrisy against them if they stick with McConnell's plan to blockade any nominee. Sens. Dan Coats of Indiana, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, John McCain of Arizona and Pat Roberts of Kansas all supported the nomination in 1997.

But Republicans have been clear for weeks that they will block Obama's pick, regardless of qualifications. They've vowed to wait for the “voice of the people” to be heard in November before even considering the next justice, for fear of confirming a nominee that could tilt the court leftward for years to come.

But Democrats also see a once-in-a-generation chance to reshape the bench in their favor. And beyond that, the White House and its allies say they are fighting to preserve the power of the president to nominate a justice with the advice and consent of the Senate in the face of unprecedented partisan obstruction by Senate Republicans, who have ruled out even a confirmation hearing, let alone a vote.

"This is not a responsibility that I take lightly,” Obama said on Wednesday.

McConnell dug in his heels within hours of late justice Antonin Scalia's death last month, saying the American people should have a say in choosing the next justice through the presidential election process. Democrats have strongly objected, and said Republicans' refusal is further evidence that they have long questioned Obama's legitimacy as president.

Outside groups have already fired shots in the escalating conflict. The conservative Judicial Crisis Network will launch an immediate $2 million ad buy opposing Garland's nomination, with national and state ads expected to be part of the campaign.

Garland is well-respected and politically-connected in Democratic circles. One potential drawback for those hoping Obama would put a liberal justice on the court to serve for generations Garland’s age, which at 63 is about a decade older than the average for recent Supreme Court picks. Garland has been on lists of potential Supreme Court hopefuls since the 1990s.

While Obama is clearly trying to put forward a nominee some Republican senators might be tempted to confirm, picking someone in his 60s could also be seen as a concession by the president that the senate is unlikely to act so putting a younger nominee through a protracted confirmation fight isn’t worth the battle.

In 2010, Obama considered Garland for the Supreme Court vacancy caused by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. Obama ultimately tapped then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan for that slot.

In an email earlier in the day, Obama did not name his choice, but said he sought someone with "an independent mind, unimpeachable credentials, and an unquestionable mastery of law." The president also discussed his pick during a Wednesday morning conference call with Senate Democratic leadership and Judiciary Committee members, and the name leaked out shortly afterward.

Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner, backed up Senate Republicans on Wednesday morning, saying they shouldn't give Obama's pick a hearing.

“I don’t think so, no I think they should do what they’re doing,” Trump said on “Good Morning America” Wednesday.” “I think they should wait until the next president and let the next president pick.”

Obama also alluded to the looming battle with the Senate in his email on Wednesday.

"I’m confident you’ll share my conviction that this American is not only eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, but deserves a fair hearing, and an up-or-down vote," Obama said. "In putting forward a nominee today, I am fulfilling my constitutional duty. I’m doing my job. I hope that our Senators will do their jobs, and move quickly to consider my nominee. That is what the Constitution dictates, and that’s what the American people expect and deserve from their leaders."

Obama laid out three principles that he said guided his choice.

First, that a justice "should possess an independent mind, unimpeachable credentials, and an unquestionable mastery of law."

Second, that he or she "should recognize the limits of the judiciary's role."

And third, that his choice have "a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook."

"It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom," he elaborated, "experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly-changing times."

Republicans don’t plan to let Obama define his nominee’s qualifications for long. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) predicted that the nominee would "resemble a pinata," and Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus announced Monday that he’s creating a task force to vet the candidate. That includes working with the opposition research group America Rising Squared, which is already building dossiers on the potential nominees.

To replace Scalia on the bench, Obama will need to convince at least 14 Republican senators to join Democrats to break an inevitable filibuster and at least five Republican senators to vote with Democrats for confirmation — but first somehow convince McConnell to back off from his absolutist position against even giving the nominee a hearing.

So far, there are few signs that the Republican stand against any action on an Obama nominee is likely to crack. All 11 GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed what amounts to a written pledge that no nominee will be granted a hearing until after a new president is sworn in next January.

The White House is hoping to create some movement by this summer, but many expect that this battle will go all the way through November, with Democrats threatening to turn it into a major political issue in all five states with vulnerable Senate Republican incumbents. They also hope to expand the 2016 battleground to more states with an argument about GOP obstruction, which they're aiming to tie to Donald Trump's rise as the likely Republican presidential nominee.

Democrats feel that in addition to their own base, support is high among independents for Obama going through the normal process of replacing a justice on the Supreme Court, as recent polls show. But Republicans are equally confident in their firm position, especially since filling Scalia's seat with an Obama nominee would change the ideological balance of the court for a generation. They’ve pointed to old arguments by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Vice President Joe Biden when he was in the Senate that the chamber should not necessarily confirm a justice in a presidential election year. Republicans have taken to saying they're just following the "Biden rule."

As the announcement plans were made public on Wednesday morning, the White House was already ramping up its campaign, creating the Twitter handle @SCOTUSnom.

But the fight was brewing well before that, with a special effort to put pressure on Grassley, who's known for valuing the traditions of the Senate. He’s up for re-election in November, and his refusal so far to hold hearings has emboldened a Democratic challenger, Patty Judge.

The progressive wing’s champion, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), made a surprise appearance at a panel discussion on Tuesday hosted by the left-leaning legal group American Constitution Society about the importance of confirmation hearings, and she echoed Democrats’ key refrain: “The Senate should do its job.”