Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Botany

(78,180 posts)
5. From wiki / BTW please republicans try to block this guy
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:14 AM
Mar 2016

Early life, education and legal training[edit]
Garland was born in Chicago, Illinois. His mother, Shirley (née Horwitz), was a director of volunteer services, and his father, Cyril Garland, headed Garland Advertising in Chicago.[2][3] His father comes from a Protestant family, while Merrick was raised in his mother's religion, Judiasm. Garland grew up in Lincolnwood, Illinois, graduated eighth grade from Lincoln Hall Middle School, and graduated high-school from Niles West High School in Skokie, Illinois, in 1970. He was named one of 119 members of the Presidential Scholars Program by the Commission on Presidential Scholars, and he came with that group to the White House on June 4, 1970 to listen to a special address in the East Room of the White House to the group by President Richard Nixon. Garland also was named a National Merit Scholar.[4][5]

Garland graduated valedictorian from Harvard College with an A.B. summa cum laude in social studies in 1974 and then graduated from Harvard Law School with a J.D. magna cum laude in 1977.[6] During law school, Garland was a member of the Harvard Law Review and served as articles editor from 1976 to 1977. Following graduation, he clerked for Judge Henry Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1977 to 1978, and then clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. from 1978 to 1979.

Professional career[edit]
Garland was Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States from 1979 to 1981. He then joined the law firm of Arnold & Porter, where he was a partner from 1985 to 1989 and from 1992 to 1993.[7] He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1989 to 1992, and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1993 to 1994. From 1994 until his appointment as U.S. Circuit Judge, Judge Garland served as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, where his responsibilities included the supervision of the Oklahoma City bombing and UNABOM prosecutions. One of Garland's mentors, according to a July 6, 1995 Los Angeles Times article, was then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick.

Garland has taught antitrust law at Harvard Law School and has served as co-chair of the administrative law section of the District of Columbia Bar. On March 16, 2016 Garland was nominated by President Barack Obama to fill Justice Antonin Scalia's vacant seat in the Supreme Court


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland

*****

Article Two of the United States Constitution requires the President of the United States to nominate Supreme Court Justices.

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court..."

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I'm a bit surprised at that. I thought he'd nominate the person that was confirmed 97-0. PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #1
Thought so houston16revival Mar 2016 #2
Let's hope that President Obama now Nominates Srinivasan to Chief Justice AND Ketanji Brown Jackson Firebrand Gary Mar 2016 #3
He probably can't do that FBaggins Mar 2016 #17
The Chief Judge is not nominated by the President. former9thward Mar 2016 #21
Noted, thank you for the clarification. Firebrand Gary Mar 2016 #23
Unless you are Shrub Rosco T. Mar 2016 #25
SCOTUS is different from the federal bench in that respect. Chan790 Mar 2016 #42
Roberts joined the court and soon became the Chief Justice karynnj Mar 2016 #26
No and no. former9thward Mar 2016 #68
This message was self-deleted by its author Reter Mar 2016 #72
Let me add so that I don't have to edit my original OP. Firebrand Gary Mar 2016 #4
Break that down for me. apnu Mar 2016 #6
In the long scheme of things houston16revival Mar 2016 #8
Very simple iandhr Mar 2016 #9
It just cost them the Senate majority. Firebrand Gary Mar 2016 #12
The Senate majority was lost before Scalia died, simple demographics. L. Coyote Mar 2016 #20
I think the presumption is that the Republicans won't hold hearings and it will cost them PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #13
Because the varies republican senators painted themselves into a corner and point blank said cstanleytech Mar 2016 #14
It might force them to hold hearings The Green Manalishi Mar 2016 #19
From wiki / BTW please republicans try to block this guy Botany Mar 2016 #5
That's quite the resume. Arkana Mar 2016 #38
check ... salinsky Mar 2016 #7
Exactly Sunsky Mar 2016 #11
Yes, indeed. potone Mar 2016 #15
unless this is exactly what the GOP wanted all along Fast Walker 52 Mar 2016 #27
You haven't been paying attention ... salinsky Mar 2016 #43
In that case, we still win. Chan790 Mar 2016 #47
Exactly billhicks76 Mar 2016 #64
I'm not so sure... beac Mar 2016 #40
Might not be the number one choice? Babel_17 Mar 2016 #10
If Republicans don't approve this centrist houston16revival Mar 2016 #16
Trump would almost certainly nominate his sister. Chan790 Mar 2016 #49
Live video mahatmakanejeeves Mar 2016 #18
Let's all cheer a moderate rather than a Progressive SHRED Mar 2016 #22
Right? CrispyQ Mar 2016 #34
They're fine with the status quo. Le Taz Hot Mar 2016 #36
A moderate would still be an improvement considering its a replacement for Scalia cstanleytech Mar 2016 #48
+1 Myrina Mar 2016 #53
It's called a tactical move ... salinsky Mar 2016 #58
Obama Playing Chess Argument Again? billhicks76 Mar 2016 #65
Especially since it won't do ANYTHING to the GOP Doctor_J Mar 2016 #61
Yep. Moderate usually means the little guy gets screwed. progressoid Mar 2016 #63
If he isnt as extreme as Scalia its a step in the right direction imo. cstanleytech Mar 2016 #69
a step in the RIGHT directon is the problem Skittles Mar 2016 #73
If the nominee was someone like Janice Rogers Brown yes, it would be to the right cstanleytech Mar 2016 #74
Watching Judge Garland's speech now: a very good nominee The Blue Flower Mar 2016 #24
Could it be that... Else You Are Mad Mar 2016 #28
Obama had to know Garland's gun record would not shift the GOP stance at all Blasphemer Mar 2016 #29
Well he did in his previous picks. Two women iandhr Mar 2016 #30
Right... I think he would have continued making similar picks... nt Blasphemer Mar 2016 #31
Well the SCOTUS is the only branch of the US government with no WASPS. iandhr Mar 2016 #33
Senate Republicans houston16revival Mar 2016 #32
And oil wells and strip mines Punx Mar 2016 #51
This is a good pick Johnny2X2X Mar 2016 #35
And the court is still more liberal than it was with Scalia on the bench. Arkana Mar 2016 #39
Please proceed, Senator Hatch! yellowcanine Mar 2016 #37
Hatch has already said ... salinsky Mar 2016 #41
I Can't Believe RobinA Mar 2016 #44
Republicans nominate sulphurdunn Mar 2016 #45
Sacrificial lamb Crepuscular Mar 2016 #46
Obama disappoints again (and again). lark Mar 2016 #50
Agreed billhicks76 Mar 2016 #66
Goody, another old white guy from Harvard ... Myrina Mar 2016 #52
dem pundits, leaders should make hay out of this and the 7 years of wiggs Mar 2016 #54
Excellent choice, Garland is "one of the most respected jurists in the country". Sunlei Mar 2016 #55
And then this... SHRED Mar 2016 #57
Obama: salinsky Mar 2016 #56
Another old, white, conservative male on the court! Woo-hoo! Doctor_J Mar 2016 #59
If Orrin Hatch likes him that's good enough for me! Doctor_J Mar 2016 #60
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2016 #62
Hillary And Orin Hatch billhicks76 Mar 2016 #67
Ugh, not progressive enough. Odin2005 Mar 2016 #70
Never heard of him. romanic Mar 2016 #71
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»BREAKING: Obama to Nomina...»Reply #5