Merrick Garland: The Myth of His Poor Treatment

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing has revived the myth of Merrick Garland’s mistreatment. In a New York Times piece, Adam Liptak and Sheryl Stolberg write that Senate Republicans’ decision not to confirm Garland in 2016 — after the death of conservative mainstay Antonin Scalia — to a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land “was personal and painful” for Garland. Former Democratic candidate for president Andrew Yang declared that “after the treatment of Merrick Garland the message should be clear — let the people decide.” The Lincoln Project issued a poorly written statement referring to “the disgrace of Merrick Garland.”

Exactly what constituted the supposedly heinous treatment of Merrick Garland, who continues to sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals? The answer is that he was not afforded the opportunity to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court. Garland was doubtlessly disappointed that he came as close as he did to achieving such an honor, only to be denied a hearing. But Senate Republicans were under no obligation to give him one, much less to confirm him. Moreover, Republicans avoided personal attacks on Garland, instead arguing that, because the president and Senate had opposite views on the matter, voters should be given a voice in the kind of justice who would succeed Scalia. Ultimately, Garland was not a satisfactory pick to a majority of senators, so he was not elevated. Compared to how Republican judicial nominees have been treated for the past several decades, Garland’s treatment was positively heartwarming.

About the Author

Isaac Schorr

Isaac Schorr is an editor at Mediaite and a 2023–2024 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow at the Fund for American Studies.

Featured Tags

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing has revived the myth of Merrick Garland’s mistreatment. In a New York Times piece, Adam Liptak and Sheryl Stolberg write that Senate Republicans’ decision not to confirm Garland in 2016 — after the death of conservative mainstay Antonin Scalia — to a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land “was personal and painful” for Garland. Former Democratic candidate for president Andrew Yang declared that “after the treatment of Merrick Garland the message should be clear — let the people decide.” The Lincoln Project issued a poorly written statement referring to “the disgrace of Merrick Garland.”

Exactly what constituted the supposedly heinous treatment of Merrick Garland, who continues to sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals? The answer is that he was not afforded the opportunity to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court. Garland was doubtlessly disappointed that he came as close as he did to achieving such an honor, only to be denied a hearing. But Senate Republicans were under no obligation to give him one, much less to confirm him. Moreover, Republicans avoided personal attacks on Garland, instead arguing that, because the president and Senate had opposite views on the matter, voters should be given a voice in the kind of justice who would succeed Scalia. Ultimately, Garland was not a satisfactory pick to a majority of senators, so he was not elevated. Compared to how Republican judicial nominees have been treated for the past several decades, Garland’s treatment was positively heartwarming.