so that's odd for merrick garland. on the other hand, as you have been hearing from ari and others, merrick garland is someone who is extremely well respected here in washington, in the senate, by republicans. when he was confirmed in 1997, 32 republicans voted for him. out of the 76 who voted to confirm him. and the only no votes were really based on considerations of the size of the federal court of appeals in 1997. there was and continues to be something of a controversy about whether the d.c. court of appeals has too many judges given its work load, and that was really the issue. not many people opposed him because of who he was. he has prosecution experience, as you have said. he served in the justice department in the clinton administration. and worked very in a high visible role in the oklahoma city bombing case, and also in the unabomber case. so he has a lot of support, bipartisan support, and he's also well liked. that helps, too. he's a friend of many members of the senate, republicans and democrats. so what

it's very difficult to label merrick garland. he is certainly not a fulbright circuit marshall. 18has an outstanding record, intellect, and has garnered swath of the broad american people. i think it will be difficult on for republicans and their counterparts to really challenge him given the fact so many conservative lawyers, interest groups have praised his work on the d.c. circuit. if a democrat wins the white house in november, could that person renominate merrick garland? there.n: i'm not going [laughter] ms. aron: i think merrick garland is really a stellar nominee. i think he should be confirmed. i think he will be a wonderful addition to the supreme court. i think he should be confirmed this year and then with the upcoming vacancies, which we assume will occur, after all, three of the justices will be in their 80's 2018, which means the next president might have the opportunity to name several more supreme court justices. should confirm merrick garland this year and see what happens in the future. shortlistnames on the ,

and merrick garland is a very fine choice by president obama. it's one that is sort of understandable on a number of levels. i think jeffrey toobin said that by picking somebody in -- >> guys, i need to interrupt. president obama is stepping to the stage. >> 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 arbitrars of our law. they safeguard our rights and ensure that our system is one of laws and not many. they are 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, mo

nominee, you would reach out for merrick garland. and in that sense, if you just say, who has the objective qualifications, who would republicans have the hardest time saying no to, it's definitely merrick garland. but the thing is that he is the exact opposite of what you would expect if you were saying that the president was trying to motivate democrats to rally behind or trying to help a democrat in the presidential election. because he's a 63-year-old white guy. he is a deeply respected, probably the most deeply respected democratic appointee on the bench. in some ways, some narrow ways, he's slightly more conservative than justice scalia, particularly on criminal law issues. it's not surprising to hear people say that democratic groups are a little bit disappointed about the lost opportunity. i think i have a little bit of a different take than a lot of people about this. i think only barack obama would ever have made this nomination. he's a former constitutional law professor. i think he takes this nomination deeply personally.

i chose a serious man and exemplary judge, merrick garland. over my seven years as president and 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 came up repeatedly is merrick garland. i recognize that we have entered the political season. or perhaps these days never end. a political season that is even noisier and more volatile than usual. i know that republicans will point to democrats who made it hard for republican presidents who made it hard to get there nominees confirmed and they are not wrong about that. there have been politics involved in nominations in the past. it should be pointed out 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 roll on the court 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 confirm

. >> let's talk about merrick garland. senator mcconnell said this isn't about a person, but it is. what kind of pressure is on him right now? and is there anything he can do? can he knock on doors of members of the judiciary committee and try to get a hearing? >> usually when a person is nominated they will spending a few weeks preparing for the confirmation hearings, and the confirmation hearings are political theater, where they sit before the committee and withstand questioning for two, three, four, days. and this will be unlikely confirmation battle that i have seen in my lifetime, simply because the republicans have refused to even -- to -- to hold hearings, much less take -- take a vote. so the -- the key here i think is merrick garland's impeccable credentials. i was impressed by his presence there and poise. his personal touch. all of those things will work in his favor. and this will be -- his -- his no, ma'am -- nomination will be the most scrutinized nomination in the history of the court. >> the history of the

prospects of becoming justice merrick garland. we're going to be talking about with this nomination means. this nomination happened today in the context of this red-hot political campaign that we're in right now. right? this unusually insane process we're having this year of trying to choose a successor to president obama. i mean, today, alone, we've got senator rubio dropping out of the race. we've got the real prospect that marco rubio may go further than quitting the presidential race. he may actually quit his u.s. senate seat rather than return to it. part of the way senator rubio campaigned for the presidency was by talking openly about how much he hated the job of being a u.s. senator. brags about the fact that he basically never showses up for that job. trying to turn his worst voting record in the senate into some sort of political advantage because he hates the senate so much. he's been open about that. right? so there's the prospect that he will also quit the senate. that's out there today. we've also got former rubio su

you mentioned merrick garland. many of the current justices served on this circuit before being elevated to the supreme court. garland has a 19-year paper trail on the bench. that could be a plus or a minus. there is also p soft judge sri srinivasan. he is foreign born. he was born in india and grew up in kansas. he served in the solicitor general's office in the bush and oba administration. he's younger at 29. but republicans including the senate judiciary chair chuck grassley say it's not going to happen. >> this president will not be filling this current vacancy. but the president indicated he intends to submit a nomination. that's okay. he's constitutionally empowered to make the nomination and the senate holds the constitutional power to with hold consent. reporter: i think the person he picks will tell us a lot about what kinds of fight he plans to have. to put up judge sri srinivasan would ask republicans to block someone who was approved by 90% of the senate. i can tell you some conservative groups put toge

merrick garland, when he went to the d.c. circuit in 1997, he had 32 republicans voting for his confirmation. seven of them are still in the senate today. a few weeks ago, orrin hatch praised him. it's very difficult to label merrick garland. he is certainly not a fulbright circuit marshall. he has an outstanding record, intellect, and has garnered praise from a broad swath of the american people. i think it will be difficult on the merit for republicans and their counterparts to really challenge him given the fact so many conservative lawyers, interest groups have praised his work on the d.c. circuit. >> if a democrat wins the white house in november, could that person renominate merrick garland? ms. aron: i'm not going there. [laughter] ms. aron: i think merrick garland is really a stellar nominee. i think he should be confirmed. i think he will be a wonderful addition to the supreme court. i think he should be confirmed this year and then with the upcoming vacancies, which we assume will occur, after all, three of the just

and then merrick garland. he's widely respected across both sides of the aisle and is considered by many a moderate judge. he's been waiting in the wings for this opportunity for years after he was picked over for the last two seats on the high court. a graduate of harvard and harvard law school and served at the department of justice. he's 63 years old and the conventional wisdom would be that obama would prefer someone younger. of course carroll this is a unique time with republicans vowing not to hold a hearing so anything is possible. >> you are right about that pamela brown. if i were a betting woman i would say sri srinivasan and only because the senate confirmed his position on the u.s. court of appeals 97-0. marco rubio and ted cruz voted in support. and manu raju now, despite that there is already a push on the floor of the senate to defeat whoever the nominee may be. >> that's right. this started as soon as the vacancy arose. mitch mcconnell said we should wait to the next president to see that repub

tell us a little bit more about judge merrick garland. tell us about his background and personal story. guest: he is originally from chicago. president bonded over that yesterday in the nomination. he has been on the federal euros court in washington for 19 years and prior to that he was a prosecutor and left a job in private law practice to become a prosecutor. the most notable part of his career, he oversaw the investigation and prosecution of the oklahoma city bombing as well as the unabomber trial. he talked a little bit about how his experience has shaped him yesterday. talk a little bit about that experience, being a prosecutor and dealing with victims of crimes. guest: he talked about a number of things, talking to witnesses. i think he described them as mothers and grandmothers and try to convince them to come forward to cooperate and testify against people. the veryalked about moving experience of being responsible for making sure that prosecution of the oklahoma city and thatent properly justice was done there. those clearly wer

everyone likes merrick garland. he's like the paul rudd of federal judges. ( laughter ) in fact, it's like paul rudd with a puppy's face, and then, like, the puppy's rise paul rudd's face. that's more-- yea

i have the same thought you do watching merrick garland. people on the supreme court always say that basically, lightning has to strike for you to be nominated to the supreme court. because there are lots of qualified judges throughout the country. qualified people in political life who could be nominated and serve well. combination of factors. i got the sense that one of the reasons merrick garland is so emotional is he's been up to the brink twiet ce before. not it's happening. not only is he being nominated to the united states supreme court, it's happening when he altar. >> chuck todd is in the studio with us. prior to this announcement, so many on the republican side of the aisle said, no way. not now. no hearings. we don't want to have a meeting. i watched you going over your phone as this was happening. is there any crack in that? >> some crack. for instance, your mainstream conservative senator from missouri said he'd vote against the pick. he said nothing about hearings. other republican senators said, i'm sticking by my pledge of

i chose a serious man and 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 made it hard for presidents to get their nominees confirmed. they are 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 t

merrick fp garland was confirmed in 1997. after at that time seven republican senators still sitting in the sonar, those seven senators actually voted for merrick garland, including senator orrin hatch, who had this to say about him, talking about merrick garland in 1997. >> based on his qualifications, i support the nomination of mr. garland, and i encourage my colleagues to do the same. to my knowledge, no one, absolutely no one disputes the following -- merrick garland is highly qualified to sit on the d.c. circuit. his intelligence and scholarship cannot be questioned. >> now, hatch has said that things have changed now. he put out a statement saying really agreeing with senator mcconnell, and chuck grassley, saying i think highly of judge garland, but his nomination doesn't in any way change current circumstances. those circumstances being that the republicans just will not consider a nominee, no matter who he is. some is republicans in touch reelection races will feel a lot of pressure, mark crook, the illinois republic

a half ofs do senators is said they will meet with merrick garland and late this week, illinois senator kirk said "just man up and cast a vote." it has been only four days and it seems line your ranks are breaking, sir. >> well, senator kirk is a trick senator running for re-election this year and he is going to be re-elected in november. what we need to focus on is the principle, the principle, who ought to make the appointment? you have to go back 80 years to find the last time a vacancy created in an election year was filled, become to 1888 when cleveland was in the white house to find the last time when a vacancy was created in a presidential area a senate controlled by the party honest the party confirmed. the senate has a relative to play here. the president nominates, we decide to confirm. we thing the important principle in the middle of the presidential election that the american people need to weigh in and decide who is going to make this decision. not this lame duck president on the way out the door but the next president, next year. >> you are talking about principle and fig

i chose a serious man and eemplary 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 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. point to dememrats who have 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 ahough it should be pointed out that in each of those instances democrats ultimately cofirmed a nominee put forward by a republican president. i also know that because of justice scalia's outside role in the court and in american law and in the fact that americans are closely divided on a number of issues before the court,

judge merrick garland made the round meeting with democrats. john terrett reports. >> reporter: good evening, merrick garland made the drive up capitol hill. it's true, a handful have begun reaching out. it's a hard party line. no nomination or confirmation hearing and no up or down vote. the white house sells its man hard. one day after the nomination. the judge was in capitol hill, in whose hands his fate lies. both democrats, as the republicans show few signs of backing down on refusing merrick garland a hearing. leahy says it's the most important vote that has to be made. >> it's too important. they shouldn't talk by phone. >> he has referring to mitch mcconnell who spoke by phone, saying he had no plans to schedule a hearing. on the senate floor they noted how the nomination could change the direction of the court. and republicans and democrats disagree on that. >> republicans think the people deserve a voice in this decision. the president does not. so we disagree in this instance. as a result we act as a check and balance. >> mitch mccon

john, tell us more about merrick garland. >> yes, it is merrick garland, by the way. the white house saying within the past 20 minutes or so, that no one is better suited. he has more federal judicial experience than any other supreme court nominee in history. he is 63 years old. he is a harvard graduate as are five members of the existing supreme court, as was justice scalia. he is currently the chief justice at the court of appeals in the washington, d.c. circuit, and at 63 years old, he will be the oldest nominee for the supreme court since lewis powell. that was back in 1972. he was 64 when he was nomined. merrick garland was nominated by the senate in his present position by 70 votes to 23 back in 1997. so merrick garland has had 19 years experience, and he has been waiting for his chance to go to the supreme court. his name was in the frame when president obama nominated elaine kagan, and son you sotomayor, but he got passed over at that point. his reputation is one of moderation. he is seen as a conservative when it comes to criminal justice issues. and the pre

i chose a serious man and 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 made it hard for republican presidents to get their nominees confirmed. and they are 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 american law and the fact that americans are , closely divided on a number

did he say "merrick garland"? don't get me wrong, merrick garland's a good name for a judge, but it's a great name for so many other things. for instance, merrick garland, a sexy bayou vampire in an anne rice novel. or how about merrick garland, an old country estate outside of atlanta that was probably built by slaves? or merrick garland, an evil oil tycoon from an '80s prime time soap opera? what's that, ghost scalia? the kind of evil oil tycoon who could smother a supreme court justice with a pillow at a texas ranch? what?! justice scalia, your sleep number is... eternity. ha ha ha ha ha! ♪ (applause) i don't know why we're staying on that story. excuse me? one of america's finest justices doesn't deserve justice? now, merrick garland is an eminently qualified justice. so qualified that, last week, republican senator orrin hatch held garland up as an ideal bipartisan choice calling the justice "a fine man" before adding that obama probably wouldn't pick him because he's too moderate, and back in 2010, hatch c

i chose a serious man, 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 noisier and more volatile than usual. i know that republicans will point to democrats who 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 c

i chose a serious man and 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 made it hard for presidents to get their nominees confirmed. they are 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 t

merrick garland is highly qualified to sit on the d.c. circuit. his intelligence and scholarship cannot be questioned. >> so amy, you heard what mike said. you have this list of senators saying they will at least meet with him or think he should be considered. have you awkward situations as well. a couple of senators from oklahoma who by all accounts who did remarkable work and thought of extremely highly by families. he has personal relationships. where do you see this going? what are the dynamics on the hill? >> i will say as much as mike said. there may be some movement but i think that grassley and mcconnell pulled all the troops together and it is hard for me to see them going so far back on their word and holding hearings or having a vote. i think that this nomination was intended to call the senator's bluff on the gop side. but i don't think it's going to work. i think they just may leave the table before everything else happens. >> we should say it is not just the republicanes who have concerns about this. for example, mike, the liberal gr

it's a judge by the name of merrick garland. he's been the president's backup candidate, as people have told me in the past, if there's a republican senate, this is a guy they think that can get through the republican senate. he's considered more moderate than other liberal justices. why? >> well, because of his record. experience in the justice department. widely respected. i mean, the thing is, now, presidents tend to want younger nominees. if you look at the most recent trend, they're nominating people in their 50s, that's not merrick garland, but he's the right kind of ideology. >> welcome back. that was my conversation with pete williams one month ago. literally, the day after the vacancy occurred there. well, today, president obama followed through, nominating merrick garland. chief judge of the d.c. circuit court for the vacant seat on the supreme court. speaking from the rose garden, the president warned of what he believes will be consequences of blocking a vote on his nominee. >> the reputation of the supreme court wil

merrick garland. the respected judge will meet on capitol hill today. a handful of republicans will meet with garland eventually. we have more from michelle kosinski. >> reporter: john and christine, you have the perfect spring day in the rose garden. unexpectedly emotional. you knew just outside the perfect political storm was only getting bigger. we heard from republicans right away. mitch mcconnell and others who supported merrick garland back when he was confirmed to the federal bench in d.c. years ago. this should not happen now. mcconnell is saying it is not about the person, but the principal. president obama should not put forward the nominee in the environment who will shift the balance of the court before the election. the white house wants to present garland as the perfect consensus nominee. somebody so moderate with such stellar credentials that you would look as bad as possible to not consider him. the white house wants to apply pressure from the public to convince senate republicans at the very least give help a chance and if they won't, o

i don't think they expected him to put merrick garland in. i think they said, all right, we'll do hearings and a vote. and always too liberal. barack obama came out of the rose garden the other day with merrick garland, days after orrin hatch said he doesn't have the ves particular fortitude. that's when it went up in smoke and now they can't have hearings, because on every metric, merrick garland is going to pass with flying colors. in fact, some people are saying he has a better resume than john roberts, chief justice roberts. >> i know orrin hatch, if he smokes the smoke in all the cigarettes. 2010 was a disaster for democrats, electorally. but a lot of republican senators in places like wisconsin, ohio, even north carolina, which can be a swing state. barack obama won it once, he won it in 2008. these are the guys who are in a really tough position. because the polling is clear. you can put it up again. approve or disapprove of the senate obstruction. independents disapprove of this. 57-25. even republicans disapprove. -- i mean, approve

president obama nominates a justice, merrick garland. he describes him as one of america's sharpest legal minds. it is shot down by senate republicans, vowing to bar any nominee. also, a deal with turkey, and the fight against human traffickers. angela merkel spelling out her policy at an evening a summit with turkey tomorrow. among skepticism from european partners, and voters here in germany. the u.s. federal reserve says it is holding interest rate steady with the u.s. economy now expanding at a moderate pace. said chairwoman janet yellen says two interest rate increases look likely later in the year. ♪ anchor: my name is christopher, thank you for joining us. president barack obama has nominated merrick garland to be the next supreme court justice. the vacancy on the supreme court follows the death of the conservative justice, antonin scalia, last month. but republicans controlling the senate say they will block a vote on anyone obama nominates. they want to prevent him from moving the court to the left before he leaves office. >>

president obama nominated merrick garland for the supreme court. he's the chief judge for the united states court of appeals for the district court. i'm barbara harrison. >> i'm keeping a close eye on the metro shut metro buses. >> right now, metro rail shut down as crews carefully respect third rail power cables. been inspecting. president obama as we just said just made a major announcement and listening to but now we are going to talk about metro rail and the shut down. crews carefully inspecting the third rail cables today. the system will be closed until 5:00 tomorrow morning. that's the plan. and that is an unprecedented move. the shutdown is forcing more than 700,000 people to stay home or an alternate way to get around. buses, bikes and caps are among the top choices for people forced off the trains today. news 4's malette green begins our coverage in d.c. where it all started. molette? >> good morning. inside source telling me metro is now becoming a system that's proactive about safety. and making it very clear that this shutdown was, in

we're talking of course, about merrick garland. he has meetings today with democratic senators who are all but certain to support his nonation. >> those meetings the first in a long series of introductions. abc's terry moran starts us off with more about judge garland himself. >> reporter: after weeks of anticipation, there was president obama striding into the rose garden, iroducing his nominee. >> i've made my decision. >> reporter: judge merrick garland, standing quietly at the president's side, then stepping forward. the emotion of the moment` overwhelming him. my life, other than lynn agreeing to marry me 28 years ago. >> reporter: his family there watching, minunudaughter becky. >> i also wish that we hadn't so adventurous that she would be hiking in the mountains out of cell service range when the president called. >> reporter: for decades, merrick garland has been a prominent figure in american law. 63 years old, he's one of the oldest nominees ever. he is chief judge of the u.s. court of appeals in washington, where he ser

acceptable to republicans than merrick garland. he's well-liked, well-respected of thebably that's one reasons the president nominated him, because he knew it would be republicans lot of to oppose him. born in chicago, harvard law. a prosecutor in the oklahoma city case. went to oklahoma city. i think that's a very important what makes merrick garland the person that he is. because if you look at his beings, he tends to deferential to federal agencies but tough on criminal defendants. duality.at sort of he's been on the court of appeals. the now the chief judge of washington, d.c. court of appeals for 19 years. let me tell you what a careful man he is. the roses speech in garden, he served i've served for 18 years. butas three days shy of 19, he said 18. that's the kind of careful person he is. confirmed in 1977. he had 32 republicans voting for of whom are still in office. so he's -- >> and he's been on the short list for a long time. 2010, you were on this program, at this table, and you said he was on the short list even then. w

you, in fact, clerked with judge garland. what do you know about merrick garland? him hereclerked with in new york. we work closely together in other areas. good to see you, kay. beyond the ideology, we have to think about what kind of judge they would be. what is unquestionable is he is very intelligent, knows the law well. he has a wonderful judicial temperament. he listens to arguments on both sides. having clerked with justice powell, that is what i had in -- identify with. vonnie: isn't that the case for most justices? isn't that a prerequisite? david: i will not name names, but there have been justices in history that have not had those qualities. vonnie: is merrick garland the most obvious choice? may notsri srinivasan have been easier to get the nomination process underway. marek has been considered in the past. as i said, wonderfully qualified, would be a terrific justice. that said, i was a little surprised, even though i'm happy for merrick. one reason i'm surprised, his age, he is my age. typically, presidents are reluctant to appoint people in their ea

merrick garland is his name. just becoming the most talked about man in washington. >> i have fulfilled my constitutional duty. knot 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 harry reid, he is with the nominee for the supreme court, merrick garland. let's take a listen, if we can hear what they're saying. it may be a photo op. neither appears to be speaking. merrick garland going on to capitol hill today in spite of getting that call from mitch mcconnell which said we're not going to consider you. so he has been meeting throughout this afternoon, as he goes into the room. they're plotting strategy, the white house has down outreach, putting their plans together. we'll talk about that coming up. let me go back to robert costa and talk about somebody else at that meeting. congressman trent franks of arizona. you talked about that, and i want to read a part of the statement that he just issued. i have been asked on many occasions what i would do if the race comes down to one-on-one contest between mr. trump and mrs. clinton. i have responded as a conservative i cannot trust mr. trump to do the right thing. however i can trust mrs. clinton to do exactly the wrong thing. consequencely in that circumstance i would vote for donald trump

he nominated merrick garland because at least he sees in merrick garlanmerrick garland as really unassailable qualifications, someone who shares a similar approach to the law. >> woodruff: what would you add to that, seth waxman? >> you know, i think merrick has a reputation for being a centrist, a prudent jurist, and i want to say that, you know, since we were in college together, merrick has had the deserved reputation for being a careful, deliberate, prudent person. i don't mean to say that he's timid. he makes decisions, and he makes them when they have to be made, and he makes difficult decisions, but he doesn't decide anything. he doesn't decide things-- with the exception of his decision to marry lynn, he doesn't decide things on emotioned. >> woodruff: which he mentioned today. >> and he doesn't make decisions based on the received wisdom of other people. he scnt say, "all these people they respect think this so i should think that." you know, merrick goes back to first principle when deciding things like which ski run to take when we're skiing together. he is a careful, prudent perso

this is merrick garland, whom the president did nominate. he would like to have that quickly taken care of so we can fill the seat, but this is the quote from senator pat toomey, who said, "with the u.s. supreme court's balance at stake, and with the presidential election fewer than eight months away," he wants more of a voice to be heard, and here's our next graphic to tell you that he is asking, "it is wise to give the american people a more direct voice in the selection and confirmation of the next justice, but should merrick garland be nominated again by the next president, i would be happy to carefully consider his nomination." so he's asking to upend the normal system that we have in place for a president, a sitting president nominating someone and having them go through the senate selection process and being confirmed or not. he just doesn't want to bother with all that and save the time and the money. >> monica, i break with my fellow conservatives on this on the process, because i believe that the advise and consent of the senate is

supreme court nominee merrick garland. he won't get a confirmation hearing but there is talk of a possible meeting with chuck grassley. pamela brown is working the story for us. what are you learning? >> we've learned the new nominee merrick garland began reaching out to senators shortly after the president made the announcement. before he heads to the hill tomorrow. and now we're learning the senate judiciary chairman chuck grassley is considering meet with garland in person after recess. the president is clear this decision is about his legacy, not the election. >> today i am nominating chief judge merrick brian garland to join the supreme court. >> reporter: president obama made his case for 63-year-old merrick garland, chief judge for the d.c. appeals court. >> 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. >> reporter: an emotional judge garland with his family

as they did when they confirmed merrick garland to the d.c. circuit, i asked 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 the behalf of the american people. he deserves our thanks and he deserves a fair hearing. and with that, i would like to invite judge garland to say a few words. [ applause ] >> thank you. 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, there's another caveat, the birth of our daughters, jessi 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.

here's what senator hatch said of merrick garland and i quote, i know merrick garland very well. he'll be very well -supported b all sides and the president knows that. he said a lot more complementary things. republicans are slamming the door on a good man they once embraced. simply why? because president obama nominated him. that's how they've treated him over his entire presidency. they've done it for going on 7 1/2 years. it didn't matter where these ideas came from. it didn't even matter if they came from republicans. republican leaders repeated that big lie over and over in many different ways. they said, whatever president obama proposes, even if it's a republican idea, it cannot help you. and will hurt you. look at the affordable care act. in 2009, 50 million americans were suffering without health insurance. the centerpiece of reform is the individual mandate. where did that come from? from the conservative heritage foundation. but as soon as president obama proposed the individual mandate, it suddenly became socialism in their eyes. but it's not just the affordable care

want to play a little bit of orin hatch about merrick garland. this is 1997. >> i support the nomination of mr. garland and i encourage my colleagues to do the same. to my knowledge, no one, absolutely no one, disputes the following -- merrick garland is highly qualified to sit on the d.c. circuit. his intelligence and his scholarship cannot be questioned. >> that, of course, those kinds of things will be replayed, the biden rule brian williams was speaking of it earlier with pete williams. the biden speech which was contradicted, of course, by the judiciary chairman at the time, strom thurman, we should be confirming and they went on to do it. >> it's nothing personal. it's just business. the business right now is they move forward and get the business done in the senate and put this aside. maybe they might get to it later, my senses is they won't. >> this is a list of the current republican senators who voted to confirm judge garland back in 1997. oh, mitch mcconnell, chuck grassley, richard shelby, there are actually seven of them. >> you'll s

brian garland to join the supreme court. >> reporter: on wednesday, merrick garland began his life in the public eye. a video introduction to garland, signaling that it has to have a public fight over the pick. >> i think that's what judges are supposed to be to make sure that the constitution is faithful to the law, and have the people's trust. so they get an honest hearing. >> this could be the only time that the public hears from judge garland. when judge antonen scalia died in january s. want senate said that they wouldn't pick anyone to replace him because obama is in his last months. >> it's the president's right to nominate a supreme court justice, and it's the senate's duty to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent. >> the president praised garlandes' experience, he oversaw the trial of timothy mcvey. >> it will not only be the senate's constitutional duty. but it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that's beyond repair. it will mean everything is subject to the most partisan of politics. everything. >> reporter: a political observer sa

it's very difficult to label merrick garland. he is certainly not a fulbright full throated thurgood marshall. by the same token he has an , outstanding record, intellect, intellect and has , garnered praise from a broad swath of the american people. i think it will be difficult on the merit for republicans and their counterparts in the advocacy groups to really challenge him given the fact so many ultraconservative lawyers interest groups have praised his , work on the d.c. circuit. >> if a democrat wins the white house in november, could that whether it is hillary clinton or bernie sanders, should that person renominate merrick garland or to someone more progressive? ms. aron: i am not going there. [laughter] i think merrick garland is really a stellar nominee. i think he should be confirmed. i think he will be a wonderful addition to the supreme court. i think he should be confirmed this year and then with the upcoming vacancies, which we assume will occur, after all, three of the justices will be in their 80's by 2018, which

i chose a serious man, an exemplary judge, merrick garland. over my seven years as president, in all my conversations with senators from both parties, in which i ask 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. 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 made it hard for republican presidents to get their nominees confirmed. and they're not wrong about that. there has 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 outside role on the court and in american law and the fact that americans are closely divided on a number of issues be