Washington Examiner - Merrick Garland Deserves the Senate's Consideration and Respect

Op-Ed

By: Senator Chris Coons

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to meet with Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit regarding his nomination to serve on the United States Supreme Court. After our meeting, at least one thing is clear: This public servant is worthy of consideration for our nation's highest court.

Whether individual senators eventually decide to support or oppose his confirmation, a decision I have not yet reached, I can say confidently that Chief Judge Garland is worthy of full consideration, including thorough hearings and an up-or-down vote.

Judge Garland's legal experience is difficult to match. For the past 19 years, he has served admirably on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, commonly regarded as our country's "second highest court." Prior to joining the bench, Judge Garland devoted much of his career to public service, and as a federal prosecutor, he worked to make sure perpetrators of terrorism and other violent crimes faced justice.

Meeting one-on-one with Judge Garland was critical to developing my views of the nominee. In addition to appreciating his impressive intellect and substantial experience, I found Judge Garland to be an individual of good judgment and strong character. He is someone who recognizes the importance of respecting precedent and our Constitution, while also finding common ground and seeking consensus in resolving the challenging issues that the courts face.

I am continuing to review Judge Garland's record carefully, and I encourage other senators to do the same. I left our meeting more convinced than ever that Judge Garland's nomination deserves the full Senate's consideration. That means hearings and a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee and a vote on the Senate floor.

The American people deserve the same opportunity that I had to hear from Judge Garland himself. A hearing would allow the Senate to bring this discussion with Judge Garland into public view. My colleagues and I would have the opportunity to ask questions on issues that are important to our constituents. After that, we should take a vote, guided by our oaths to uphold the Constitution.

Some of my colleagues have suggested the opposite course. They claim that giving the American people a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice means that the Senate should do nothing. They say we shouldn't have hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and the people's elected representatives in the Senate shouldn't take a vote.

I strongly disagree. Rather than giving more people a voice in the process, refusing to hold hearings prevents the American public from hearing Judge Garland's answers and developing their own views. Likewise, refusing to hold a vote on Judge Garland's nomination does not hold us accountable to the people we were elected to serve.

Our democratic system of government already has in place a process that allows every senator to fully examine Judge Garland's judicial record and philosophy. Just as the Constitution calls on the president to nominate a candidate to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, the same document requires the Senate to provide "advice and consent" on whomever the president nominates.

That means meeting with Judge Garland one-on-one, holding public hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and casting a vote -- yes or no -- on whether his record, temperament and character qualify him for an appointment to our nation's highest court. I view my participation in this process as one of my most central responsibilities to the Delawareans I represent in the Senate, a responsibility that is rooted in our Constitution.

I hope the rest of my colleagues will meet with Judge Garland in person and give him the consideration he deserves. If they do, I'm confident that Judge Garland's qualifications and character will break the political gridlock that has greeted his nomination.

Source