Merrick Garland NominationEdit
Merrick Garland’s nominations anchor a notable chapter in the interaction of executive appointments and Senate politics in the 21st century. Garland, a longtime prosecutor and judge with a reputation for careful analytical restraint, has occupied two distinct yet consequential nomination tracks: a 2016 bid to join the Supreme Court of the United States and a 2021 bid to serve as Attorney General of the United States under Joe Biden. The two cases illuminate how constitutional norms, partisan strategy, and public opinion intersect in the confirmation process.
Garland’s career prior to the nominations included a blend of public service and high-level litigation. He served as a federal prosecutor and later as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, building a reputation for methodological rigor and a preference for judicial restraint. His background as a prosecutor and jurist fed into expectations that he would approach complex criminal and civil-rights questions with due process and stability in mind. He was also noted for leadership roles within the Department of Justice earlier in his career. In this sense, the nominations reflected a conservative expectation that a nominee with Garland’s experience would bring credibility, steadiness, and a non-activist temperament to the bench or to the department.
The 2016 Supreme Court nomination
In early 2016, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, President Barack Obama moved to nominate Garland to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy. The nomination immediately became a focal point of partisan debate, because the vacancy arose during an election year and the composition of the Court carried significant implications for American constitutional interpretation. The central question for many supporters of Garland was whether the Senate should proceed with a confirmation in a year when the presidential election was already underway, and whether a nominee from the opposite party should be confirmed by a Senate controlled by the other party.
Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, asserted that the next president—whether elected in November or already anticipated—should have the prerogative to fill the seat. They argued that a nomination in an election year with a newly elected president should be left to the next administration, invoking a version of the tradition that the electorate should determine the Court’s trajectory in a basic sense. From this perspective, proceeding with hearings or a vote on Garland would diminish the electorate’s role in shaping the high court for a generation. The procedural reality was that the United States Senate did not move forward with Garland’s confirmation, and Garland never received a Senate vote.
The decision to withhold proceeded despite Garland’s broad professional endorsements and a record that some conservatives viewed as potentially liberal-leaning. Critics warned that confirming a nominee perceived as liberal would tilt the Court in a direction that many conservatives believed would reshape constitutional questions on issues ranging from executive power to individual rights. The episode underscored a broader debate about how to balance the constitutional duties of Advice and Consent with the political legitimacy of a court poised to decide major issues for years to come. The seat would later be filled by Neil Gorsuch in 2017, a development that underscored the practical consequences of the 2016 decision to delay.
Garland’s 2016 nomination is frequently cited in debates about how past norms should guide present practice. Proponents of the block argued that the Senate’s inaction was warranted by the political moment and the principle that the next president should choose a nominee for the Court. Critics argued that delaying a vote in a presidential election year had politicized the appointment process in a way that could undermine the public’s faith in the separation of powers and in the Senate’s role as a check on executive power. The episode remains a touchstone in subsequent discussions of judicial nominations and procedural norms.
The 2021 Attorney General nomination
Garland’s later nomination to be Attorney General of the United States came from a very different political setup. With Joe Biden elected president, Garland was tapped to lead the Department of Justice at a moment when the country faced questions about law-enforcement integrity, civil rights enforcement, and the administration of federal justice across a wide spectrum of issues—from violent crime to antitrust to threats against democratic processes. The nomination was presented as an effort to restore a sense of impartiality and stability in the nation’s chief legal agency after a period of perceived political polarization.
The confirmation process in 2021 reflected Garland’s reputation for steadiness and his long-form record of public service. The confirmation hearings and floor vote indicated broad interest in returning to a traditional, nonpartisan posture within the Department of Justice—an approach that many believed would emphasize the rule of law over political expediency. The Senate ultimately confirmed Garland with a sizable, cross-partisan majority, illustrating a willingness to support a nominee deemed suitable on credentials and temperament for the nation’s top law-enforcement post.
From supporters’ vantage, Garland’s tenure as AG would emphasize the restoration of predictable prosecutorial norms, robust civil-rights enforcement, and a measured response to evolving criminal threats. They argued that a diligent, apolitical DOJ protects the rights of citizens while maintaining public safety and the integrity of federal law enforcement. Critics, particularly some conservatives, argued that a Garland-led DOJ could be used to pursue political targets under the banner of enforcing state and federal laws, or to advance policy priorities under the guise of equality before the law. In this framing, the controversy resembled a broader debate about how to balance aggressive crime-fighting measures with protecting civil liberties and ensuring that enforcement remains fair and even-handed.
Supporters of Garland’s nomination contended that the DOJ should be an independent steward of the law—one that upholds due process, prosecutes genuine offenses without partisan favoritism, and resists the impulse to weaponize the department for political ends. They often framed concerns about overreach as exaggerated or unlikely, pointing to Garland’s documented commitment to legal process and to the bar’s standards of professional conduct. Critics claimed that the changing political climate could lead to selective enforcement or political calculations; they asserted that the DOJ’s actions may become as much about signaling political resolve as about following the letter of the law. In responding to these criticisms, proponents highlighted the long-standing traditions of the DOJ and the importance of keeping prosecutorial discretion under appropriate oversight and accountability.
The debates around Garland’s nomination, both in 2016 and in 2021, reflected enduring questions about the proper balance between constitutional norms, political accountability, and the practical realities of governing a diverse republic. They also brought to the fore discussions about how to respond to crime, civil rights concerns, and the changing dynamics of federal enforcement in a time of rapid social and political change.