Zachary Weaver
     Staff Writer

On Wednesday, March 16, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland as his nominee for Supreme Court Justice to replace the departed Antonin Scalia.

“No one is more qualified to serve the country right now in this critical role,” said Obama in a Facebook post.

In his announcement speech Obama emphasized his confidence in both Garland’s career and character. He stated that Garland has earned a track record of “building consensus as a thoughtful, fair-minded judge who follows the law.”

Magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, Garland has served in numerous law positions, including a HW Bush prosecutor, the Justice Department, and the DC Circuit Court.

He is considered by political analysts to be a safe choice, well-respected by Democrats and Republicans alike. As a moderate, his views and background in theory are palatable to both sides of the political aisle.

Garland has been involved with several notable anti-terrorism cases, including the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh, one of the Oklahoma City bombers.

“I saw the importance of assuring victims and families that the justice system could work,” Garland said, “We promised that we would find the perpetrators, that we would bring them to justice, and that we would do it in a way that honored the Constitution.”

Garland thanked his family in his speech accepting Obama’s nomination, crediting them with supporting and enabling his path. He described a sense of duty as compelling him to enter a public service career.

He also stated that he would be guided by the Constitution and the law alone. “People must be confident that a judge’s decisions are determined by the law, and only the law,” Garland said. “For a judge to be worthy of such trust, he or she must be faithful to the Constitution and to the statutes passed by the Congress.”

Garland concluded by reaffirming his commitment to the law, and his intent to hold to that course.

“Fidelity to the Constitution and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life,” Garland said in his conclusion, “It’s the hallmark of the kind of judge I have tried to be for the past 18 years.”

The Right’s response has been divided, with many stating that they would not consider Garland for the position, and that the next president should pick the candidate fill the vacancy.

“This has never been about who the nominee is,” said Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, in a statement on Wednesday. “It is about a basic principle. Under our Constitution, the president has every right to make this nomination, and the Senate has every right not to confirm a nominee.”

Ryan’s sentiments were echoed by other representatives, who also stated that they would not support a nominee put forward by Obama, before and after the nomination.

“I fully support Leader McConnell and Chairman Grassley’s decision not to move forward with the confirmation process,” Ryan said, concluding his statement. “We should let the American people decide the direction of the court.”

Alternatively, other Republicans have stated that they would give due consideration to Garland, and not dismiss him out of hand.

“The Senate’s constitutionally defined role to provide advice and consent is as important as the president’s role in proposing a nominee,” said Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, in his statement as quoted in a Time article. “I will assess Judge Merrick Garland based on his record and qualifications.”

Obama emphasized that obstructionism would solve nothing, and would worsen the already-contentious political situation. Beyond that, he stated that squabbling would weaken the American people’s confidence in their own justice system. “I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him a fair hearing, and then an up or down vote,” said Obama in his speech.  “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”