Obama Nominates Judge Garland To US Supreme Court – Full Speech


Good morning. Everybody, please have a seat. Of the many powers and responsibilities that
the Constitution vests in the presidency, few are more consequential than appointing
a Supreme Court justice — particularly one to succeed Justice Scalia, one of the most
influential jurists of our time. The men and women who sit on the Supreme Court
are the final arbiters of American law. They safeguard our rights. They ensure that our
system is one of laws and not men. They’re charged with the essential task of applying
principles put to paper more than two centuries ago to some of the most challenging questions
of our time. So this is not a responsibility that I take
lightly. It’s a decision that requires me to set aside short-term expediency and narrow
politics, so as to maintain faith with our founders and, perhaps more importantly, with
future generations. That’s why, over the past several weeks, I’ve done my best to
set up a rigorous and comprehensive process. I’ve sought the advice of Republican and
Democratic members of Congress. We’ve reached out to every member of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, to constitutional scholars, to advocacy groups, to bar associations, representing
an array of interests and opinions from all across the spectrum. And today, after completing this exhaustive
process, I’ve made my decision. 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. These qualities, and his long
commitment to public service, have earned him the respect and admiration of leaders
from both sides of the aisle. He will ultimately bring that same character to bear on the Supreme
Court, an institution in which he is uniquely prepared to serve immediately. Today, I am nominating Chief Judge Merrick
Brian Garland to join the Supreme Court. (Applause.) Now, in law enforcement circles, and the in
the legal community at large, Judge Garland needs no introduction. But I’d like to take
a minute to introduce Merrick to the American people, whom he already so ably serves. He was born and raised in the Land of Lincoln
— in my hometown of Chicago, in my home state of Illinois. His mother volunteered in the
community; his father ran a small business out of their home. Inheriting that work ethic,
Merrick became valedictorian of his public high school. He earned a scholarship to Harvard,
where he graduated summa cum laude. And he put himself through Harvard Law School by
working as a tutor, by stocking shoes in a shoe store, and, in what is always a painful
moment for any young man, by selling his comic book collection. (Laughter.) It’s tough. Been
there. (Laughter.) Merrick graduated magna cum laude from Harvard
Law, and the early years of his legal career bear all the traditional marks of excellence.
He clerked for two of President Eisenhower’s judicial appointees — first for a legendary
judge on the Second Circuit, Judge Henry Friendly, and then for Supreme Court Justice William
Brennan. Following his clerkships, Merrick joined a highly regarded law firm, with a
practice focused on litigation and pro bono representation of disadvantaged Americans.
Within four years, he earned a partnership — the dream of most lawyers. But in 1989,
just months after that achievement, Merrick made a highly unusual career decision. He
walked away from a comfortable and lucrative law practice to return to public service. Merrick accepted a low-level job as a federal
prosecutor in President George H.W. Bush’s administration. He took a 50-percent pay cut,
traded in his elegant partner’s office for a windowless closet that smelled of stale
cigarette smoke. This was a time when crime here in Washington had reached epidemic proportions,
and he wanted to help. And he quickly made a name for himself, going after corrupt politicians
and violent criminals. His sterling record as a prosecutor led him
to the Justice Department, where he oversaw some of the most significant prosecutions
in the 1990s — including overseeing every aspect of the federal response to the Oklahoma
City bombing. In the aftermath of that act of terror, when 168 people, many of them small
children, were murdered, Merrick had one evening to say goodbye to his own young daughters
before he boarded a plane to Oklahoma City. And he would remain there for weeks. He worked
side-by-side with first responders, rescue workers, local and federal law enforcement.
He led the investigation and supervised the prosecution that brought Timothy McVeigh to
justice. But perhaps most important is the way he did
it. Throughout the process, Merrick took pains to do everything by the book. When people
offered to turn over evidence voluntarily, he refused, taking the harder route of obtaining
the proper subpoenas instead, because Merrick would take no chances that someone who murdered
innocent Americans might go free on a technicality. Merrick also made a concerted effort to reach
out to the victims and their families, updating them frequently on the case’s progress.
Everywhere he went, he carried with him in his briefcase the program from the memorial
service with each of the victims’ names inside –- a constant, searing reminder of
why he had to succeed. Judge Garland has often referred to his work
on the Oklahoma City case as, and I quote, “the most important thing I have ever done
in my life.” And through it all, he never lost touch with that community that he served. It’s no surprise then, that soon after his
work in Oklahoma City, Merrick was nominated to what’s often called the second highest
court in the land — the D.C. Circuit Court. During that process, during that confirmation
process, he earned overwhelming bipartisan praise from senators and legal experts alike.
Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, who was then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
supported his nomination. Back then, he said, “In all honesty, I would like to see one
person come to this floor and say one reason why Merrick Garland does not deserve this
position.” He actually accused fellow Senate Republicans trying to obstruct Merrick’s
confirmation of “playing politics with judges.” And he has since said that Judge Garland would
be a “consensus nominee” for the Supreme Court who “would be very well supported
by all sides,” and there would be “no question” Merrick would be confirmed with
bipartisan support. Ultimately, Merrick was confirmed to the D.C.
Circuit, the second highest court in the land, with votes from a majority of Democrats and
a majority of Republicans. Three years ago, he was elevated to Chief Judge. And in his
19 years on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Garland has brought his trademark diligence, compassion,
and unwavering regard for the rule of law to his work. On a circuit court known for strong-minded
judges on both ends of the spectrum, Judge Garland has earned a track record of building
consensus as a thoughtful, fair-minded judge who follows the law. He’s shown a rare ability
to bring together odd couples, assemble unlikely coalitions, persuade colleagues with wide-ranging
judicial philosophies to sign on to his opinions. And this record on the bench speaks, I believe,
to Judge Garland’s fundamental temperament — his insistence that all views deserve a
respectful hearing. His habit, to borrow a phrase from former Justice John Paul Stevens,
“of understanding before disagreeing,” and then disagreeing without being disagreeable.
It speaks to his ability to persuade, to respond to the concerns of others with sound arguments
and airtight logic. As his former colleague on the D.C. Circuit, and our current Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, once said, “Any time Judge Garland disagrees,
you know you’re in a difficult area.” At the same time, Chief Judge Garland is more
than just a brilliant legal mind. He’s someone who has a keen understanding that justice
is about more than abstract legal theory; more than some footnote in a dusty casebook.
His life experience –- his experience in places like Oklahoma City –- informs his
view that the law is more than an intellectual exercise. He understands the way law affects
the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly-changing
times. And throughout his jurisprudence runs a common thread -– a dedication to protecting
the basic rights of every American; a conviction that in a democracy, powerful voices must
not be allowed to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. To find someone with such a long career of
public service, marked by complex and sensitive issues; to find someone who just about everyone
not only respects, but genuinely likes –- that is rare. And it speaks to who Merrick Garland
is — not just as a lawyer, but as a man. People respect the way he treats others — his
genuine courtesy and respect for his colleagues and those who come before his court. They
admire his civic-mindedness — mentoring his clerks throughout their careers, urging them
to use their legal training to serve their communities, setting his own example by tutoring
a young student at a Northeast D.C. elementary school each year for the past 18 years. They’re
moved by his deep devotion to his family — Lynn, his wife of nearly 30 years, and their two
daughters, Becky and Jessie. As a family, they indulge their love of hiking and skiing
and canoeing, and their love of America by visiting our national parks. People respect Merrick’s deep and abiding
passion for protecting our most basic constitutional rights. It’s a passion, I’m told, that
manifested itself at an early age. And one story is indicative of this, is notable. As
valedictorian of his high school class, he had to deliver a commencement address. The
other student speaker that day spoke first and unleashed a fiery critique of the Vietnam
War. Fearing the controversy that might result, several parents decided to unplug the sound
system, and the rest of the student’s speech was muffled. And Merrick didn’t necessarily agree with
the tone of his classmate’s remarks, nor his choice of topic for that day. But stirred
by the sight of a fellow student’s voice being silenced, he tossed aside his prepared
remarks and delivered instead, on the spot, a passionate, impromptu defense of our First
Amendment rights. It was the beginning of a lifelong career
— as a lawyer, and a prosecutor, and as a judge — devoted to protecting the rights
of others. And he has done that work with decency and humanity and common sense, and
a common touch. And I’m proud that he’ll continue that work on our nation’s highest
court. I said I would take this process seriously
— and I did. I chose a serious man and an exemplary judge, Merrick Garland. Over my
seven years as President, in all my conversations with senators from both parties in which I
asked their views on qualified Supreme Court nominees — this includes the previous two
seats that I had to fill — the one name that has come up repeatedly, from Republicans and
Democrats alike, is Merrick Garland. Now, I recognize that we have entered the
political season — or perhaps, these days it never ends — a political season that is
even noisier and more volatile than usual. I know that Republicans will point to Democrats
who’ve made it hard for Republican Presidents to get their nominees confirmed. And they’re
not wrong about that. There’s been politics involved in nominations in the past. Although
it should be pointed out that, in each of those instances, Democrats ultimately confirmed
a nominee put forward by a Republican President. I also know that because of Justice Scalia’s
outsized role on the Court and in American law, and the fact that Americans are closely
divided on a number of issues before the Court, it is tempting to make this confirmation process
simply an extension of our divided politics — the squabbling that’s going on in the
news every day. But to go down that path would be wrong. It would be a betrayal of our best
traditions, and a betrayal of the vision of our founding documents. At a time when our politics are so polarized,
at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comity are so often
treated like they’re disposable — this is precisely the time when we should play
it straight, and treat the process of appointing a Supreme Court justice with the seriousness
and care it deserves. Because our Supreme Court really is unique. It’s supposed to
be above politics. It has to be. And it should stay that way. 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. To suggest that someone who has served his
country with honor and dignity, with a distinguished track record of delivering justice for the
American people, might be treated, as one Republican leader stated, as a political “piñata”
— that can’t be right. Tomorrow, Judge Garland will travel to the
Hill to begin meeting with senators, one-on-one. I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to
give him a fair hearing, and then an up or down vote. 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. It will mean everything is subject to the
most partisan of politics — everything. It will provoke an endless cycle of more tit-for-tat,
and make it increasingly impossible for any President, Democrat or Republican, to carry
out their constitutional function. The reputation of the Supreme Court will inevitably suffer.
Faith in our justice system will inevitably suffer. Our democracy will ultimately suffer,
as well. I have fulfilled my constitutional duty. Now
it’s time for the Senate to do theirs. Presidents do not stop working in the final year of their
term. Neither should a senator. I know that tomorrow the Senate will take
a break and leave town on recess for two weeks. My earnest hope is that senators take that
time to reflect on the importance of this process to our democracy — not what’s expedient,
not what’s happening at the moment, what does this mean for our institutions, for our
common life — the stakes, the consequences, the seriousness of the job we all swore an
oath to do. And when they return, I hope that they’ll
act in a bipartisan fashion. I hope they’re fair. That’s all. I hope they are fair.
As they did when they confirmed Merrick Garland to the D.C. Circuit, I ask that they confirm
Merrick Garland now to the Supreme Court, so that he can take his seat in time to fully
participate in its work for the American people this fall. He is the right man for the job.
He deserves to be confirmed. I could not be prouder of the work that he has already done
on behalf of the American people. He deserves our thanks and he deserves a fair hearing. And with that, I’d like to invite Judge
Garland to say a few words. (Applause.) JUDGE GARLAND: Thank you, Mr. President. This
is the greatest honor of my life — other than Lynn agreeing to marry me 28 years ago.
It’s also the greatest gift I’ve ever received except — and there’s another caveat
— the birth of our daughters, Jessie and Becky. As my parents taught me by both words and
deeds, a life of public service is as much a gift to the person who serves as it is to
those he is serving. And for me, there could be no higher public service than serving as
a member of the United States Supreme Court. My family deserves much of the credit for
the path that led me here. My grandparents left the Pale of Settlement at the border
of Western Russian and Eastern Europe in the early 1900s, fleeing anti-Semitism, and hoping
to make a better life for their children in America. They settled in the Midwest, eventually
making their way to Chicago. There, my father, who ran the smallest of
small businesses from a room in our basement, took me with him as he made the rounds to
his customers, always impressing upon me the importance of hard work and fair dealing.
There, my mother headed the local PTA and school board and directed a volunteer services
agency, all the while instilling in my sister and me the understanding that service to the
community is a responsibility above all others. Even now, my sisters honor that example by
serving the children of their communities. I know that my mother is watching this on
television and crying her eyes out. (Laughter.) So are my sisters, who have supported me in
every step I have ever taken. I only wish that my father were here to see this today.
I also wish that we hadn’t taught my older daughter to be so adventurous that she would
be hiking in the mountains, out of cell service range — (laughter) — when the President
called. (Laughter.) It was the sense of responsibility to serve
a community, instilled by my parents, that led me to leave my law firm to become a line
prosecutor in 1989. There, one of my first assignments was to assist in the prosecution
of a violent gang that had come down to the District from New York, took over a public
housing project and terrorized the residents. The hardest job we faced was persuading mothers
and grandmothers that if they testified, we would be able to keep them safe and convict
the gang members. We succeeded only by convincing witnesses and victims that they could trust
that the rule of law would prevail. Years later, when I went to Oklahoma City
to investigate the bombing of the Federal Building, I saw up close the devastation that
can happen when someone abandons the justice system as a way of resolving grievances, and
instead takes matters into his own hands. Once again, I saw the importance of assuring
victims and families that the justice system could work. 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. The people of Oklahoma City gave us their trust, and
we did everything we could to live up to it. Trust that justice will be done in our courts
without prejudice or partisanship is what, in a large part, distinguishes this country
from others. People must be confident that a judge’s decisions are determined by the
law, and only the law. 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. He or she must put aside
his personal views or preferences, and follow the law — not make it. Fidelity to the Constitution and the law has
been the cornerstone of my professional life, and it’s the hallmark of the kind of judge
I have tried to be for the past 18 years. If the Senate sees fit to confirm me to the
position for which I have been nominated today, I promise to continue on that course. Mr. President, it’s a great privilege to
be nominated by a fellow Chicagoan. I am grateful beyond words for the honor you have bestowed
upon me. (Applause.)

1 Response

  1. StoptheNWO2012 says:

    THE BAR BRITISH, Work for NAZI BUSH

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *