You are on Twitter Mobile because you are using an old version of Internet Explorer. Learn more here ||||| Justice Who Is Merrick Garland? CREDIT: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama stop to look at a portrait of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia after paying their respects at Scalia's casket in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court in Washington, Friday, Feb. 19, 2016. 
 
 Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the longest serving Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered his own thoughts on who President Obama should nominate to fill the seat left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last week. “[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” Hatch told the conservative news site Newsmax, before adding that “he probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.” 
 
 On Wednesday, the president reportedly plans to call Hatch’s bluff. Multiple sources report that the president will announce his nomination of Garland, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to fill Scalia’s seat. 
 
 Chief Judge Merrick Garland 
 
 Garland is unquestionably qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. A 19 year veteran of the DC Circuit — a court that is widely viewed as the second-most powerful in the nation — Garland graduated with high honors from Harvard Law School. He clerked for Justice William Brennan, and spent a few years as a partner in the multinational law firm Arnold and Porter. He also held senior positions in the Justice Department, including a leadership role in the department’s criminal division and a stint as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General. 
 
 At age 63, Garland is also the oldest person nominated to the Supreme Court since President Nixon named Justice Lewis Powell in 1971. Thus, if confirmed, Garland is unlikely to match — or even approach — Justice Scalia’s nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court. 
 
 Garland's relatively advanced age may help explain why Hatch floated the DC Circuit chief judge as his ideal Obama nominee. Another factor that almost certainly played a role is Garland's reputation for moderation. In 2003, for example, Garland joined an opinion holding that the federal judiciary lacks the authority “to assert habeas corpus jurisdiction at the behest of an alien held at a military base leased from another nation, a military base outside the sovereignty of the United States" -- an opinion that effectively prohibited Guantanamo Bay detainees from seeking relief in civilian courts. A little over a year later, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in Rasul v. Bush. Although, in fairness, it should be noted that legal experts disagree about whether the decision Garland joined was mandated by existing precedents. 
 
 The former prosecutor also has a relatively conservative record on criminal justice. A 2010 examination of his decisions by SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein determined that “Judge Garland rarely votes in favor of criminal defendants’ appeals of their convictions.” Goldstein “identified only eight such published rulings,” in addition to seven where “he voted to reverse the defendant’s sentence in whole or in part, or to permit the defendant to raise a argument relating to sentencing on remand,” during the 13 years Garland had then spent on the DC Circuit. 
 
 To be clear, Garland's record does not suggest that he would join the Court's right flank if confirmed to the Supreme Court. He would likely vote much more often than not with the Supreme Court's liberals, while occasionally casting a heterodox vote. Nevertheless, as Goldstein wrote in 2010 when Garland was under consideration to replace the retiring liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, "to the extent that the President's goal is to select a nominee who will articulate a broad progressive vision for the law, Judge Garland would be a very unlikely candidate to take up that role." 
 
 The Garland nomination, in other words, appears to be an attempt to box in Senate Republicans who've refused to confirm anyone Obama nominates. There are strong reasons to doubt whether this strategy will work, however. Sen. Hatch, who undoubtedly regrets his decision to praise Garland shortly before this nomination, has outright refused to meet with anyone Obama nominates to replace Scalia. And he's far from alone within the GOP caucus. ||||| Multiple media reports say that there are only five potential nominees to fill the Scalia seat: Ketanji Brown Jackson, Merrick Garland, Jane Kelly, Sri Srinivasan, and Paul Watford. In this post, I assume that is correct. 
 
 My best guess is that the choice will come down to whether the president concludes that Judge Brown Jackson’s service on a district court and on the Sentencing Commission give her sufficient objective qualifications for the job. If so, I believe he will pick her. If not, I think he will pick Judge Srinivasan, perhaps nominating Judge Brown Jackson at the same time to fill Judge Srinivasan’s seat on the D.C. Circuit. 
 
 Here is my thinking. Four core criteria will drive the decision, in order of importance: objective qualifications; the appointment’s legacy; politics; and confirmability. The fact that confirmability is the least important factor in this special circumstance – because Republicans control the Senate and they have made clear that no nominee is actually going to get confirmed – is important to my view that Judge Brown Jackson is the more likely nominee. 
 
 With respect to each factor, there are several considerations. 
 
 Objective qualifications. Each of the five is easily qualified by historical standards, and each is well respected. The nominee’s qualifications principally are (in order of importance) his or her current position, tenure, previous positions, and education. I rank the candidates: (1) Merrick Garland (long-serving appellate judge, chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, and former senior DOJ official); (2) Srinivasan (appellate judge and former DOJ official); (3) Watford (appellate judge); (4) Kelly (appellate judge); and (5) Brown Jackson (district court judge and former vice chairman of the U.S. Sentencing Commission). Of the five, only Garland’s qualifications truly stand out as distinct. 
 
 Legacy. The appointment’s legacy principally turns on the extent to which the nominee would have a lasting impact on the Court’s jurisprudence (including the degree of confidence in the nominee’s ideology), the extent to which the nomination would be a “first” and (relatedly) make the Court more representative of the country, and the length of time the nominee would likely serve. I rank the candidates: (1) Brown Jackson (the first African-American woman and likely the most liberal); (2) Srinivasan (the first Asian American); (3) Kelly (the Court’s fourth female member); (4) Watford (the third African-American Justice and an ideological counterpoint to Justice Thomas); and (5) Garland (a white man and the oldest candidate). 
 
 Politics. By refusing to consider any nominee until after the next president is sworn in, Republicans have put the nomination at the center of the presidential race. I believe they are right that the Senate majority can reject any nominee for any reason. (I also believe they are invoking the least legitimate reason possible – the fact that this is the last year of the president’s term – given that the Constitution contemplates appointments in that year and every historical precedent weighs against rejecting a nominee for this reason.) But while the Constitution gives Republicans this blanket power, it imposes one very important check: the public can decide whether to hold Republicans accountable so that they may (or may not) pay a massive political price for exercising it. So picking a nominee in part based on electoral considerations is every bit as legitimate as Republicans’ refusal to consider the nominee in the first place. 
 
 Politics in this context includes the benefit of the nomination to the Democratic presidential candidate, which in turn includes the ability to characterize Republican opposition as outrageous and the extent to which the nomination will drive turnout for Democratic voters disproportionate to Republican voters. It also includes some respect for whom the next Democratic presidential candidate would likely want to nominate, because that candidate (having embraced the Supreme Court nomination during the election) will likely feel an obligation to nominate the same person again. Politically, I rank the candidates: (1) Brown Jackson (an African-American woman, particularly important to Hillary Clinton, with two unanimous confirmations), (2) Kelly (a woman, with a unanimous confirmation), (3) Srinivasan (Asian American, with a unanimous confirmation), (4) Watford (African American) and (5) Garland (white man). 
 
 Confirmability. As I mentioned at the top, confirmability plays a relatively minor role in my thinking. The nominee is not going to be confirmed, at least unless and until a Democrat wins the presidency in November. So there is no point to nominating someone on the ground that he or she can attract Republican votes. 
 
 That fact creates a second distinct feature of confirmability for this appointment. The relevant question is essentially who can be confirmed in the next Senate, not this one. And given the trajectory of the party nominations, there is a realistic chance that Democrats will retake the Senate. That puts on the table the prospect of confirming a materially more liberal candidate than could get through the current Senate. That is so because, in response to Republicans’ refusal to consider this nominee, a Democratic Senate majority would exercise the nuclear option and end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. (The prospect that the next Justice will end up being materially more liberal is the other way that conservatives may end up paying a huge price for this tactic.) But because the fate of the Senate majority is uncertain, I don’t give it great weight as a factor. 
 
 On the whole, I rank the confirmability of the nominees: (1) Garland (essentially, from central casting), (2) Srinivasan (regarded as a moderate Democrat), (3) Kelly (who had the strong support of the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee), (4) Brown Jackson (difficult to oppose given the combination of her race and gender), and (5) Watford. 
 
 All those four factors also have an echo effect in terms of the advocacy groups and Washington power players who will push for particular nominees. All have their own agendas and views on who would be the best choice. Generally speaking, I rank the advocacy among Washington elites as: (1) Srinivasan (regarded in Democratic legal circles as the best candidate, and superior to Garland only because of his age), (2) Garland (very deeply respected, even if he would not be among the Court’s most liberal Justices), (3) Brown Jackson (known to D.C. lawyers), (4) Watford (known to some D.C. lawyers, but not many), and (5) Kelly (best known for her support from Grassley, which ironically is not very relevant now). 
 
 I rank the support for the nominees among advocacy groups as: (1) Brown Jackson (the choice of most civil rights groups), (2) Kelly (would have the strong support of women’s groups), (3) Srinivasan (advocated by Asian-American organizations), (4) Watford (would be supported by civil rights groups), and (5) Garland. 
 
 It makes no sense to treat the choice as a math problem. That’s particularly true because the president will weigh different factors differently and also disagree with my rankings of the candidates. But on the whole, the numbers do separate Brown Jackson and Srinivasan as distinct from the other three. Garland would be the third most likely nominee statistically, but I think that his age will be decisive in any close choice. 
 
 In the end, I think the president either will or won’t discount Brown Jackson because she alone is not an appellate judge. If he does not treat that as an important consideration, I think he will pick her. For the reasons above, I give her the slight edge. It’s also important to recognize that there is a bit of a legacy to the Srinivasan nomination to the D.C. Circuit. His nomination is one of the few that involved objections within a core Democratic constituency. Labor groups in particular slowed his appointment because of his work at a D.C. corporate law firm. Their concerns were unfounded, but they were also never completely resolved. 
 
 As I’ve written before, I’m reliably told by someone deeply involved in prior nominations that the president simply will not appoint a district judge. If that is correct, then I think the nominee will likely be Srinivasan. If so, the administration could get some of the benefits of the Brown Jackson appointment by simultaneously nominating her to fill Srinivasan’s seat on the D.C. Circuit. That would position her well for a later Supreme Court appointment. 
 
 Recommended Citation: Tom Goldstein, Handicapping the five potential nominees, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 11, 2016, 9:14 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/handicapping-the-five-potential-nominees/ ||||| WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday nominated Merrick B. Garland to be the nation’s 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appellate judge who could reshape the court for a generation and become the face of a bitter election-year confirmation struggle. 
 
 In selecting Judge Garland, 63, a well-known figure in Washington legal circles who has drawn praise from members of both parties, Mr. Obama dared Republican senators to ignore public pressure and make good on their promise to block consideration of any nominee until after the next president is chosen. 
 
 The nomination to fill the seat on the court created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia sets in motion a standoff that is likely to play out for many months, perhaps without resolution. Its outcome could tip the ideological balance of the nation’s highest court, and an array of well-financed interest groups on both sides has already assembled for the battle over the nomination. ||||| The new tactic, led by Washington Sen. Patty Murray, is an attempt to galvanize women in the Supreme Court vacancy fight. | AP Photo Democrats to link court vacancy to late-term abortion bill 
 
 Senate Democrats are trying to turn the GOP’s refusal to move on the Supreme Court vacancy into the latest episode of the “war on women.” 
 
 Led by some of their most senior female members, Senate Democrats will take to the floor Tuesday to launch a new messaging offensive that ties the battle over replacing Justice Antonin Scalia to a GOP-led hearing on late-term abortions scheduled to occur later Tuesday. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 The new tactic, led by Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the sole woman in Democratic leadership, is an attempt to galvanize women in the Supreme Court vacancy fight, particularly as the high court takes up critical abortion cases. 
 
 The thrust of the message from Murray, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and other Democratic senators will be this: Senate Republicans won’t take time to fulfill their advise-and-consent duties but will take time to do what Murray calls “everything they can to turn back the clock on women’s health care.” 
 
 “While they say they won’t even hold a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities — they were eager to hold a hearing to attack women’s constitutional rights,” Murray will say, according to her remarks provided in advance to POLITICO. 
 
 She continues: “They love to talk about the Constitution — unless we’re talking about a woman’s constitutional right to make decisions about her own body, or the part that lays out the Senate’s responsibilities when it comes to filling Supreme Court vacancies.” 
 
 Murray's strategy drew a quick response from Republicans. Don Stewart, a spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), noted that the Senate was passing bipartisan education legislation and, just Monday, confirming a new education secretary — trying to undercut the Democrats’ message that the Senate isn't fulfilling its duties. 
 
 “I’m sure it’s frustrating for Senate Democrats, including Sen. Murray, who have praised the new Republican Senate for doing its job and passing major bipartisan legislation, to now have to follow Sen. [Chuck] Schumer’s talking points to the opposite,” Stewart said. “But the Senate is going to keep passing bipartisan legislation and holding oversight hearings whether the president is able to find someone to accept the Supreme Court nomination or not.” 
 
 The hearing in the Judiciary Committee, led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), is titled “Late-Term Abortion: Protecting Babies Born Alive and Capable of Feeling Pain.” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the committee’s most senior Republicans, is the chief sponsor of legislation that would ban abortion after 20 weeks. McConnell put the legislation on the floor last September, but most Democrats filibustered it, and the bill was killed on a 54-42 vote. 
 
 Planned Parenthood, which has strongly opposed the 20-week abortion ban and also pushed the Senate to promptly fill the Scalia vacancy, slammed GOP leadership on Tuesday for playing abortion politics. 
 
 “Apparently Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell are too busy playing doctor to uphold their constitutional duty to consider a Supreme Court nominee when named,” said Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. “Instead, Republican leadership wants to waste taxpayer time on a rejected piece of legislation that leading doctors flatly oppose.” 
 
 Mallory Quigley of the anti-abortion group SBA List fired back, saying: "If Senate Democrats are hoping to score political points by highlighting their support for brutal late-term abortions after five months of pregnancy, then they clearly haven’t looked at the polls." 
 
 "Both sides agree that this legislation could go to the Supreme Court. We’ve already seen the Court take up one critical abortion case without Scalia," Quigley said. "All the more reason for the Senate to proceed with hearings like this one — which expose a grave injustice in our nation — and deny President Obama the chance to stack the Court with more pro-abortion Justices." ||||| President Barack Obama has nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Garland, a judicial moderate, currently serves as chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 
 
 The announcement comes about a month after Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden death put the Supreme Court’s ideological balance up for grabs, and Garland’s nomination is certain to make him a new focal point in the intense partisan fight for control of the court. 
 
 Early Career 
 
 Garland was born in Chicago and grew up in the suburbs of the Windy City. He received his undergraduate education from Harvard College, and later earned his law degree there in 1977. He then clerked for Judge Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, both appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. 
 
 Resume 
 
 Garland was formerly a partner at law firm Arnold & Porter, but the majority of his career has been spent in government. He’s held roles as special assistant to the U.S. attorney general, assistant U.S. attorney for D.C. and deputy assistant attorney general. 
 
 Later, as principal associate deputy attorney general, Garland oversaw the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing and of Theodore Kaczynski, better known as the "Unabomber." President Bill Clinton nominated Garland to the D.C. Circuit, where he’s served since 1997. He became chief judge in 2013. 
 
 Chances of Being Confirmed 
 
 In recent weeks, Senate Republican leaders have vowed not to hold hearings on Obama's nominee, arguing that the decision ought to be made by the next president. But Garland’s reputation as a fair-minded, judicial moderate may undercut efforts by GOP opponents to obstruct his nomination. His law enforcement background, including his pursuit of the death penalty in high-profile prosecutions, may further insulate him from Republican attacks. 
 
 On the other hand, his Supreme Court clerkship under the liberal Justice Brennan, and his appointment to the D.C. Circuit by President Clinton, may supply ammunition to Senate Republicans. 
 
 Personal Life 
 
 Garland and wife Lynn were married in 1987 and have two daughters. His hobbies include tennis and skiing, according to The New York Times. 
 
 Interesting Facts 
 
 At age 63, Garland would be one of the oldest associate justices ever appointed to the Supreme Court, which may make his nomination somewhat surprising since presidents tend to pick younger justices who can serve longer terms. Garland was reportedly considered for the vacancies ultimately filled by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. 
 
 Get real-time updates as this story unfolds. To start, just "star" this story in ABC News' phone app. Download ABC News for iPhone here or ABC News for Android here. ||||| President Obama is expected to nominate Merrick Garland to serve on the Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about Garland. (Claritza Jimenez,Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post) 
 
 President Obama is expected to nominate Merrick Garland to serve on the Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about Garland. (Claritza Jimenez,Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post) 
 
 To some, Merrick Garland’s experience and demeanor could make him the quintessential Supreme Court candidate for a Democratic president. 
 
 A magna cum laude Harvard Law School graduate, he clerked not just for any Supreme Court justice but for William J. Brennan Jr., the legendary liberal champion. He was a partner at a prominent Washington law firm, then ascended the ranks at the Justice Department, where he oversaw two of the biggest domestic terrorism cases in U.S. history. 
 
 Now, the well-regarded chief judge of the D.C. federal appeals court is under serious consideration to be President Obama’s nominee for the nation’s highest court, according to people familiar with the deliberations. “Merrick is in his own league . . . He’s pretty unassailable from a reputational standpoint,” said a person close to the selection process who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. 
 
 But Garland could face a number of political factors that would put him out of contention, according to legal experts and others who have spoken with administration officials. Garland’s two-decade track record as a judge may wind up working against him, these people said, because if Republicans pore over his career, they may find more to use against him in a fierce confirmation battle. By contrast, many of the others being considered by the White House are younger and have had shorter careers. 
 
 [Activists push Obama to nominate black woman to the Supreme Court] 
 
 In addition, Garland is a white male at a moment when Democrats may want a nominee around whom they can rally minorities in the party’s base, particularly during a presidential election year. Civil rights groups, for example, are pressing the nation’s first African American president to nominate the first black woman to the court. 
 
 Barbara R. Arnwine, president of the Transformative Justice Coalition and a longtime civil rights activist, said that while Garland brings “incredible qualifications and an impressive background and résumé,” she believes a number of female black judges are just as qualified. Nominating Garland, she said, “would send a message that the status quo of American privilege is still in place.” 
 
 Given that Republicans in the Senate have vowed to block any nominee, the president’s pick could be more important for its political symbolism. 
 
 “You know the person isn’t getting confirmed,” said one legal expert who closely follows the Supreme Court and spoke on the condition of anonymity out of respect for Garland, whose nomination he considers unlikely. “Why would you disappoint every significant constituency when you’re trying to motivate people?” 
 
 [What would a Hindu justice mean for the Supreme Court?] 
 
 Garland was also a finalist for the first two Supreme Court vacancies Obama filled, according to sources who were close to those processes. But even if he is not chosen this time, people who know him say he feels honored just to be considered. 
 
 “He is very content to be the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit. It’s a wonderful job, and he’s wonderfully suited to it,” said Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general who worked with Garland at the Justice Department in the Clinton administration and considers her former colleague “supremely qualified” for the high court. “Getting an appointment to the Supreme Court requires lightning to strike.” 
 
 Gorelick praised Garland’s role at the Justice Department in supervising the massive investigations that led to the prosecutions of the bombers of the federal building in Oklahoma City and the Unabomber. 
 
 “We had a lot of very seasoned prosecutors, but when you have a matter that is both substantively difficult and cuts across the department, a really talented person such as Merrick will lead those,” said Gorelick, who added that Garland is a “brilliant lawyer and judge” who is known to be highly collegial even with colleagues across the ideological spectrum. 
 
 Garland was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President Bill Clinton in 1997 and confirmed on a 76-to-32 vote. He won support from 32 Republicans. 
 
 In 2010, when Garland was under consideration for the Supreme Court vacancy that went to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) told Reuters that he had known Garland for years and that he would be “a consensus nominee.” 
 
 Hatch, a powerful voice on judicial selection, said then that there was “no question” Garland could be confirmed. 
 
 Garland is among at least six candidates known to be under consideration. The others are judges Sri Srinivasan and Patricia A. Millett, more recent appointees to the D.C. appeals court that Garland heads; Jane L. Kelly, an appeals court judge based in Iowa; Paul J. Watford, an appeals court judge in California; and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a U.S. district judge in Washington. At 63, Garland is by far the oldest candidate for the lifetime Supreme Court appointment. 
 
 “He’s extremely well qualified, and he’s a superb judge,” said Michael Greenberger, a University of Maryland law professor who was a senior Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. “He’s widely revered on both sides of the aisle. If the White House is looking to get somebody through . . . he would be a great candidate.” ||||| FILE - In this March 14, 2016, file photo, President Barack Obama speaks at the Chief of Missions Conference at the State Department in Washington. Obama said Wednesday, March 16, he will reveal his Supreme... (Associated Press) 
 
 WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will nominate federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, congressional sources said Wednesday. The pick sets up a confrontation with Republicans who say they will refuse to consider his nomination in an election year. 
 
 Garland is the chief judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a court whose influence over federal policy and national security matters has made it a proving ground for potential Supreme Court justices. 
 
 He would replace conservative, Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly last month, leaving behind a bitter election-year fight over the future of the court. 
 
 Congressional sources spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama had not yet announced his choice. 
 
 Garland was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 1997 with backing from a majority in both parties, including seven current Republicans senators. 
 
 Obama planned to introduce his pick at 11 a.m. in the White House Rose Garden. ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings. 
 
 / Updated By Erik Ortiz, Corky Siemaszko and Phil Helsel 
 
 In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, Merrick Garland said goodbye to his wife and young daughters and flew out to the scene of the worst act of domestic terrorism on U.S. soil. 
 
 As a supervisor with the Justice Department in 1995, Garland's job was to help put away accused bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. The voluminous investigation required that each scrap of evidence be correctly cataloged — and ensured that those behind the brutal deaths of 168 people, including young children, would be brought to justice. 
 
 "Perhaps most important is the way he did it," President Barack Obama said Wednesday in recounting Garland's efforts. Obama stood with Garland at the White House as he announced the veteran federal appeals judge as his pick to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. 
 
 "When people offered to turn over evidence voluntarily, he refused," Obama continued, "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." 
 
 But the president said it was a simple gesture of Garland's that also showed a human side. 
 
 "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," Obama said. 
 
 Related: GOP Leaders Double Down on Pledge to Block SCOTUS Pick 
 
 Garland's by-the-book application of the law has been lauded in other high-profile cases he has helped to supervise, including the case against "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski in 1996. 
 
 Garland's robust credentials had often landed him on observers' lists of potential Supreme Court nominees. He was reportedly considered a top pick for the court in 2010 after Justice John Paul Stevens announced he would retire, although then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan was ultimately chosen. 
 
 But this year won't be an easy road to the nation's highest court. GOP senators have vowed to block whomever Obama nominates. 
 
 The president's selection of Garland could sway some Republicans drawn to his center-left views in a court that, with's Scalia death last month, lost one of its most vocal conservatives. 
 
 In 1997, Republican U.S. senator and Judiciary Committee member Orrin Hatch championed Garland's appointment to the federal appeals court, saying "his intelligence and his scholarship cannot be questioned." 
 
 Related: Obama Nominates Federal Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court 
 
 Born in Chicago, Garland graduated in 1970 from Niles West High School in Skokie, Illinois. 
 
 "This is fantastic," Niles West Principal Jason Ness said when informed by NBC News that Garland was Obama’s Supreme Court pick. "He’s a great role model. We’re all very proud." 
 
 Merrick Garland at the Niles West High School. Courtesy of Niles West High School 
 
 Ness said Garland was "very involved in high school." 
 
 Among other things, Garland was president of both the National Honor Society and Student Council, belonged to the debate team, the forensics team and the German Club. He also performed in high school musicals like "Guys and Dolls" and "Pygmalion." 
 
 "There were not enough hours in the day for him to do everything he did while in high school," Ness said. 
 
 Centrist record 
 
 In terms of his views, Garland would not be among the court’s most liberal justices, SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein wrote in a recent post. When his name came up in 2010, some liberal activists opposed the potential pick, calling Garland a centrist and citing his ruling in a case involving Guantanamo detainees, The Washington Post reported at the time. 
 
 In 2003, Garland agreed with conservative judges against Kuwaiti detainees at the military prison who tried to challenge their confinement by citing a lack of evidence, the newspaper said. 
 
 Garland, when he was first nominated to the appeals court, said a judge's responsibility isn't to legislate in response to a question about judicial activism. He said federal judges "do not have roving commissions to solve societal problems," according to SCOTUSblog. 
 
 Garland is a graduate of Harvard Law School and clerked for Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan before gigs at the Justice Department as deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division and principal associate deputy attorney general. 
 
 His background made him popular even with Republicans when he was first nominated to the D.C. Circuit by President Bill Clinton in 1995, but the full Senate didn't initially act on his nomination. 
 
 The issue wasn't Garland, Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley said at the time, but whether the court needed another judge at all. Grassley is now the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which would oversee any hearings on a nominee. 
 
 Related: Poll Finds Majority Disapproves of GOP Plan to Block Nominee 
 
 Garland won appointment to the federal appeals court in D.C. in 1997 by a Senate vote of 76-23 — although again, any opposition to his nomination wasn't about his qualifications. 
 
 At the time, Hatch, who still sits on the Judiciary Committee, cited his work as a federal prosecutor and judicial credentials. 
 
 "I believe he is not only a fine nominee, but is as good as Republicans can expect from this (the Clinton) administration. In fact, I would place him at the top of the list," Hatch said at the time, according to Congressional records. 
 
 Seven Republicans who voted for Garland are still in the Senate. In 2013, he was was appointed the D.C. Circuit's chief justice. 
 
 As a judge, Garland said Wednesday, "fidelity to the law" has always been a cornerstone to how he rules. 
 
 "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 added. "He or she must put aside his personal views or preferences and follow the law — not make it." 
 
 If confirmed, Garland would also be the fourth Jewish justice currently on the Supreme Court. The other five members are Catholic. 
 
 Related: Potential Supreme Court Picks Have History of Partisan Donations 
 
 Speaking from the White House, Garland said his Jewish immigrant grandparents fled anti-Semitism in Russia to "make a better life for their children in America." 
 
 The son of an advertising executive father and PTA-involved mother, Garland said service to the community is a "responsibility above all others." 
 
 "There could be no higher public service," he said, "than serving as a member of the United States Supreme Court."
– President Obama announced his choice to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court: Merrick Garland, chief judge of the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC. He's "one of America's sharpest legal minds" and is "uniquely qualified," said Obama at the White House Wednesday morning. Some coverage: At 63, Garland is relatively old for a nominee, which may have factored into why he was selected, reports ThinkProgress. At SCOTUSblog, Tom Goldstein writes that Garland "would not be among the Court's most liberal Justices." In his detailed handicapping of the leading choices, he adds that Garland is "very deeply respected." NBC News has a bio, noting that Garland is seen as a "moderate." Garland worked in the Justice Department before becoming a judge, and his leading role in the Oklahoma City bombing case "helped shape" his career, reports the New York Times. He also oversaw the Unabomber case. Garland and his wife have two daughters, notes ABC News in its "everything you need to know" file. The Washington Post digs into some of the political pros and cons of picking Garland, noting that foes have 20 years of decisions to pore over. Garland stood out even as a student back in 1970, notes this tweet of an old newspaper blurb. Garland was confirmed to the DC court in 1997 with the support of seven current GOP senators, notes the AP. But Senate Republicans have vowed to not even allow hearings on any nominee in this election year. Democrats were tying the GOP's opposition to a bill on late-term abortion, reports Politico.