It’s been dizzying trying follow the tortured logic of Pat Toomey’s argument against filling the Supreme Court vacancy. At first, Toomey fabricated a non-existent historical precedent to justify his blind obstruction. Then Toomey said he didn’t want to “mislead the American people” into thinking the qualifications of the candidate are relevant to the debate. Finally, after “ducking” questions from constituents and press, Toomey recognized the overwhelming public pressure and accepted a meeting with Judge Merrick Garland.
But, after their meeting yesterday, instead of sticking to his flimsy defense that he opposes Garland’s nomination based on its timing, Toomey attacked his “record.” So we thought it might be a good time to remind folks of the record Toomey has “some concerns” about. Judge Merrick Garland:
-
Graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University (Toomey’s alma mater)
-
Received his law degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and served on the Harvard Law Review
-
Clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, who called him “a person of exceptional talent and great personal integrity” and “one of the best” clerks
-
Oversaw the prosecutions of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols for the Oklahoma City bombing
-
Oversaw the government’s responses to the Unabomber and the Montana Freemen
-
Was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 1997 with strong bipartisan support
-
Serves as Chief Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C.
-
Serves as a mentor to his law clerks and a tutor to elementary school children
-
Has more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history
What specifically about this record is Toomey concerned about? And what did Toomey learn in this meeting that convinced him that Garland doesn’t deserve the opportunity for a public hearing?