March 17, 2016
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY
Associated Press
President Barack Obama nominated appeals court judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, thrusting a respected moderate jurist and former prosecutor into the center of an election-year clash over the future of the nation's highest court.
Obama cast the 63-year-old Garland as “a serious man and an exemplary judge” deserving of a full hearing and a Senate confirmation vote, despite Republican vows to deny him both. Standing in the White House Rose Garden with Garland, Obama argued the integrity of the court was at stake and appealed to the Senate to “play it straight” in filling the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
“It’s supposed to be above politics,” Obama said of the high court. “It has to be. And it should stay that way.”
Republican leaders, however, held to their refusal to consider any nominee, saying the seat should be filled by the next president after this year’s election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke with Garland by phone but did not change his position that “the American people will have a voice.” He said he would not be holding “a perfunctory meeting but he wished Judge Garland well,” a spokesman said.
Others in the GOP ranks were less wedded to the no-hearing, no-vote, not-even-a-meeting stance — a sign that Republicans are aware the strategy could leave them branded as obstructionist.
Unlike McConnell, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley said he is open to meeting with Garland in the coming weeks, as did five other Republican senators — Rob Portman of Ohio, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. Others vowed to give his record a close look. The judge will begin visiting with Democratic senators on Thursday at the Capitol, before the Senate breaks for a two-week recess.
Scheduling courtesy meetings is a long way from securing a full hearing, much less winning the 60 votes needed for confirmation. Still, the White House seized the comments as evidence Garland’s weighty resume and bipartisan credentials were putting pressure on Republicans.
Garland, 63, 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 justices.
A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Garland has clerked for two appointees of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower — the liberal Justice William Brennan Jr. as well as Judge Henry J. Friendly, for whom Chief Justice John Roberts also clerked. As a federal prosecutor, he made his reputation overseeing the investigation and prosecutions in the Oklahoma City bombing case in 1995, as well as the case against Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.
When confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 1997, Garland won backing from a majority in both parties, including seven current Republicans senators.
As a replacement for Scalia, Garland would undoubtedly shift the court away from its conservative tilt. He would be expected to align with the more liberal members on environmental regulation, labor disputes and campaign finance.
The D.C. Circuit isn’t a hotbed for cases on social issues, leaving few solid indicators of Garland’s views on abortion rights or the death penalty.
Garland's involvement in two high-profile gun rights cases has prompted concern from gun control opponents. In 2007, Garland wanted the full court to reconsider a panel decision that struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun ownership. But Garland never took a position on the merits of the case.
In 2000, he was part of a 2-1 majority that said the FBI could retain gun purchase records for six months to make sure the computerized instant background check system was working. The FBI's position was challenged by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups.
But he is not viewed as a down-the-line liberal. He’s ruled against giving the District of Columbia a vote in Congress. Particularly on criminal defense and national security cases, he’s earned a reputation as centrist with a law-and-order streak, siding more often with prosecutors.
When his name was floated for the Supreme Court in the past, it was liberal groups that expressed concerns, pointing to early decisions favoring the government in disputes over the legal rights of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison.
Progressives and civil rights activists also had pushed the president to name an African-American woman or to otherwise expand the court's diversity. Obama passed over appeals court Judge Sri Srinivasan, who would have been the first Asian-American justice, and Judge Paul Watford, who would have been the second African-American on the current court.
Garland — a white, male jurist with an Ivy League pedigree and a career largely in the upper echelon of Washington’s legal elite — breaks no barriers. He would be the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis Powell, who was 64 when he was confirmed in 1971.
In emotional remarks in the Rose Garden, he choked back tears, calling the nomination “the greatest honor of my life.” He described his grandparents’ flight from anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe and his modest upbringing. He said he viewed a judge’s job as a mandate to set aside personal preferences and “follow the law, not make it.”
Obama quoted past praise for Garland from Roberts and Sen. Orrin Hatch. In 2010, Hatch said he could be confirmed to the highest court “virtually unanimously.”
Garland has experience with a prolonged confirmation process. He waited 2½ years to win confirmation to the appeals court. Then, as now, one of the men blocking his path was Grassley, who argued he had no quarrel with Garland’s credentials but objected to a Democratic president trying to fill an appeals court he felt had too many seats.
March 10, 2016
By Jessica Gresko
Associated Press
If Ketanji Brown Jackson were nominated and confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, she would make history several times over. She'd be the court’s first black female justice. Her confirmation would mean that for the first time four women would sit on the nine-member court. And it would mean two black justices would be sitting together for the first time.
As a nominee, Jackson also would have the advantage of a connection to Republicans, who have vowed not to confirm anyone nominated by President Barack Obama. She is related by marriage to Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan.
As a House member, Ryan doesn't have any official say in the Senate's confirmation of Supreme Court justices. But when Jackson was nominated to be a federal judge in the District of Columbia in 2012, Ryan introduced her at her Senate hearing and called her “clearly qualified.”
“Now, our politics may differ, but my praise for Ketanji’s intellect, for her character, for her integrity, it is unequivocal. She is an amazing person, and I favorably recommend your consideration,” he said.
Jackson also has one qualification common to court members: She's a graduate of Harvard University and attended Harvard Law School, as five current justices did. At 45, she is younger than most members of the current court were when they joined the bench. Only Clarence Thomas, who joined the court at 43 and is the court’s only current black justice, was younger.
One wrinkle in any potential nomination may be that Jackson currently is a judge in district court, the lowest-level federal court. Seven of the eight current justices, all but Elena Kagan, had been on appeals courts, one level below the Supreme Court, before being elevated.
Jackson also has been a judge for only three years, a fact that could be a benefit because it means she doesn’t have a vast paper trail. But it could also lead to charges that she isn’t experienced enough. Obama first nominated Jackson to be a federal judge in 2012. She was ultimately confirmed in 2013 on a voice vote, so no tally of votes was recorded.
Already, several of her rulings have made news. In 2013, she ruled against the meat-packing industry in a lawsuit over government labeling requirements, a ruling that was later upheld on appeal. In 2014, she ruled against environmental groups who wanted to halt construction of a pipeline transporting oil from Illinois to Oklahoma. Also in 2014, she ruled against the government and allowed a nonprofit pro-Israel group to proceed with its discrimination lawsuit against the IRS.
March 10, 2016
Associated Press
Attorney General Loretta Lynch has asked to not be considered for the Supreme Court vacancy, the Justice Department said Tuesday.
Justice Department spokeswoman Melanie Newman said in a statement that Lynch was honored to serve as attorney general and was committed to serving in the position for the remainder of the term.
“Given the urgent issues before the Department of Justice, she asked not to be considered for the position,” Newman said.
She said Lynch also had decided that the nomination “would curtail her effectiveness in her current role” as attorney general.
The Obama administration is currently searching for a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last month at age 79.
A Lynch nomination was encouraged by some groups pushing the president to name the first African-American woman to the court. But she was never a likely choice. Lynch’ s ties to Obama and his policies would have given Republicans added fuel in their opposition.
Lynch, the former United States attorney in Brooklyn, was confirmed as attorney general last year following a drawn-out confirmation process.
The only remaining black woman believed to be a possible candidate is Ketanji Brown Jackson, a federal judge in the District of Columbia.
March 10, 2016
By Jennifer Peltz and Michael Balsamo
Associated Press
A New York City police officer who shot an unarmed teenager to death will not face federal civil rights charges, officials announced Tuesday, closing an investigation into a case activists have invoked in decrying police killings of black men.
There wasn’t enough evidence to support charges in the 2012 death of Ramarley Graham, who was shot in the bathroom of his Bronx home by an officer who had followed him inside during a drug investigation, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s office said in a statement.
The decision ends the possibility of criminal charges against Officer Richard Haste, who was indicted earlier on a state manslaughter charge that a judge dismissed, saying prosecutors had improperly instructed grand jurors. Another grand jury then declined to re-indict Haste, who said he fired at the 18-year-old Graham because he thought he was going to be shot. Graham was black; Haste is white.
Haste’s lawyer, Stuart London, said the officer was gratified by federal prosecutors’ decision.
“There never were any winners in this case,” he said.
Graham’s mother, Constance Malcolm, said she wasn’t surprised to see the federal probe end without charges.
“I didn’t have no faith in the system” after seeing what happened in the state case, she said by phone. “With the (federal prosecutors), I already had my guard up.”
Graham’s parents and civil rights activists held an overnight protest last month at Bharara’s office, sleeping on the concrete steps of the Manhattan office building to protest what they believed was a lag in the investigation.
Graham’s relatives, who settled a lawsuit against the city for $3.9 million, are now focusing on pressing the New York Police Department to fire Haste and other officers involved in the moments surrounding Graham’s death.
Haste is expected now to face disciplinary charges that could result in a punishment as light as losing vacation days or as serious as firing.
According to Bharara’s office, narcotics officers watching a Bronx corner store on Feb. 2, 2012, spotted Graham outside it, adjusting his pants in a way officers thought might indicate a gun, and they radioed his description to other officers.
Haste heard the description and confronted Graham, who went into his house. Officers forced their way inside and Haste ordered Graham to put up his hands and followed him to the bathroom.
Haste told authorities he thought Graham was reaching for a gun and fired. But police found no weapons in the apartment. Graham’s grandmother and 6-year-old brother were also home when the shot hit the teen's chest.
The Graham family’s lawyer, Royce Russell, said the relatives had hoped the case would at least be brought to a federal grand jury.
But prosecutors noted that in order to bring charges, they would have to establish that Haste didn’t have probable cause to believe he or other officers were in danger of death or serious injury. And prosecutors said they found no evidence to refute Haste’s claim that he believed Graham was going for a gun.
Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association President Patrick J. Lynch, who heads the NYPD officers’ union, said Haste acted while making a “good-faith effort” to combat serious public problems guns and drugs.
But the Rev. Al Sharpton, who delivered the eulogy at Graham’s funeral, said the federal prosecutors’ decision was “very painful” for both Graham’s family and the public.
Graham's death has been cited during numerous demonstrations after grand juries in Missouri and New York declined to indict police officers in the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner on Staten Island. The deaths fueled a national conversation about policing and race. A federal grand jury is currently hearing evidence in Garner’s case.