Obama Nominates Merrick Garland to Supreme Court, McConnell and Senate Republicans Refuse to Hold Hearings or Vote

On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick B. Garland, the widely respected Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death one month earlier. Garland was considered a moderate consensus candidate whom Republicans had previously praised—precisely the kind of qualified, confirmable nominee who would typically receive bipartisan support. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans, however, refused to hold any hearings, meet with Garland, or allow any vote on the nomination, executing an unprecedented 293-day blockade that denied a sitting president the ability to fulfill his constitutional duty and stole a Supreme Court seat that would later be filled by Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch.

Garland: The Perfect Consensus Nominee

Obama’s selection of Merrick Garland was strategic—Garland represented exactly the kind of moderate, highly qualified nominee Republicans had historically praised and confirmed without controversy. At 63, Garland was the Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit, often described as the second-most important court in America. His judicial record was centrist and thoughtful, he had previously been confirmed to the D.C. Circuit with strong bipartisan support (including yes votes from many sitting Republican senators), and he had been mentioned by Republicans themselves as an acceptable Supreme Court nominee. Senator Orrin Hatch had specifically praised Garland in 2010, calling him “a consensus nominee” who could earn bipartisan support. Obama’s choice of Garland was designed to call the Republicans’ bluff—if they truly wanted a “moderate” or “qualified” nominee, Garland was precisely that person.

The Unprecedented Refusal

Despite Garland’s impeccable qualifications and moderate record, McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to budge. On February 23, 2016—even before Obama had named Garland—the 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter to McConnell stating their “unprecedented intention to withhold consent on any nominee made by President Obama, and that no hearings would occur until after January 20, 2017, when the next president took office.” McConnell insisted the blockade was about “principle, not a person,” claiming that the next president should fill the vacancy. Following McConnell’s direction, Senate Republicans declined to hold any hearings on Garland or to substantively act on his nomination in any way. Chairman Chuck Grassley refused to schedule Judiciary Committee hearings. Many Republican senators refused to even meet with Garland. No proceedings of any kind were held. The Senate never voted on his nomination.

Historical Record: 293 Days of Obstruction

Garland’s nomination remained pending before the Senate for 293 days—from March 16, 2016, until January 3, 2017, when the new Congress was sworn in. This represented the longest pending nomination for any Supreme Court vacancy since 1791, when the Supreme Court itself was established. The obstruction was not based on any questions about Garland’s qualifications, judicial temperament, or ethics—Republicans never held hearings to examine any such concerns. The blockade was purely partisan and strategic: McConnell gambled that Republicans could win the 2016 presidential election and fill Scalia’s seat with a conservative justice instead of allowing Obama to shift the Court’s ideological balance. The gamble succeeded when Donald Trump won the presidency, and Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat that should have gone to Merrick Garland.

Significance

The Garland blockade represented the most consequential theft of judicial power in modern American history and established a precedent that McConnell himself would immediately abandon when politically convenient. By refusing for 293 days to consider a moderate, highly qualified nominee from a sitting president, McConnell demonstrated that constitutional norms, Senate precedent, and democratic legitimacy would be subordinated entirely to partisan power. The hypocrisy would become undeniable in 2020 when McConnell rushed through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation just 46 days before an election—a stark contrast to his 2016 insistence that voters should decide Supreme Court appointments in an election year. Garland’s stolen seat would be filled by Gorsuch after McConnell eliminated the 60-vote filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, enabling a 5-4 conservative majority that would later expand to 6-3. The refusal to give Garland hearings or a vote was not a principled stand—it was raw partisan obstruction that fundamentally delegitimized the Supreme Court and demonstrated that constitutional processes would be respected only when they served Republican power.