The American Bar Association's Standing Committee said Merrick Garland is "well qualified" to be appointed to the Supreme Court. | AP Photo American Bar Association: Garland 'well qualified' for Supreme Court

Merrick Garland is “well qualified” to sit on the Supreme Court, the American Bar Association announced Tuesday, granting the D.C. Circuit judge the association’s highest rating.

The ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which comprises 15 lawyers from across the United States, routinely reviews the professional qualifications of nominees for top federal courts, poring through their legal writings and canvassing their peers to evaluate whether a nominee belongs in one of three categories: well qualified, qualified or not qualified.


In Garland's case, a group of librarians at Stanford and Seton Hall law schools compiled Garland's legal writings — at least 300 opinions and a trove of law-review articles — in a Dropbox folder and collated them for the Standing Committee to review. The committee then conducted interviews with dozens of Garland’s peers, basing its evaluation “solely on its comprehensive, nonpartisan, non-ideological peer review of the nominee’s integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament,” said Karol Corbin Walker, who chairs the committee.

Walker highlighted Garland’s “exceptional intellect, industry, and superior work ethic” and his “reputation for being one of the hardest working and best prepared judges on the D.C. Circuit.”

“He is known among the bar and his colleagues for his preparedness at oral argument and the incisiveness of his questioning. Judge Garland is considered a model lawyer, judge and person, who should be emulated,” she continued. “Given the breadth and strength of these and a multitude of similar comments from judges and lawyers of all political persuasions and from many parts of the profession, the Committee was compelled to come to only one conclusion, that Judge Garland’s outstanding professional competence is exceptional and merits a rating of ‘Well Qualified.’”



The committee concluded that Garland is “a preeminent member of the legal profession with outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience. He meets the highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.”



President Barack Obama nominated Garland in March to fill the vacancy left by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. Senate Republicans, however, have remained steadfast in their refusal to give Garland a hearing during an election year, insisting that the responsibility should fall to the next president.

In a statement, White House counsel Neil Eggleston hailed the ABA as “one of the largest and most respected nonpartisan legal organizations in the country,” adding that it “joins a multitude of distinguished voices from across the political spectrum” who have approved of Garland’s qualifications to sit on the high court as he called on the Senate to act.

“The President nominated Chief Judge Garland 97 days ago — and given that the average time from nomination to confirmation is 67 days, there is no question that the Senate has abdicated its responsibility under the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “Filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court is a solemn responsibility that the President and the Senate share under the Constitution, and we call on the Senate to do its job and consider Chief Judge Garland's nomination.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office mocked the White House for touting the ABA’s rating on Garland, considering Obama and Vice President Joe Biden tried to block Samuel Alito’s nomination despite his “well qualified” ABA rating.

“When the ABA gave Justice Alito their highest rating—unanimously—then-Sens. Obama and Biden both turned around and joined a filibuster to block his nomination,” McConnell communications director David Popp said in an email to reporters. “They weren’t alone, 25 Democrats joined the filibuster attempt.”

Popp also cited Obama’s comments from January 2006, when he acknowledged that Alito had received the highest rating from the ABA but accused him of too often siding “on behalf of the powerful against the powerless” and voted against his nomination.

“Should he be confirmed, I hope that he proves me wrong,” Obama said on the Senate floor then. “I hope that he shows the independence that I think is absolutely necessary in order for us to protect and preserve our liberties and our freedoms as citizens. But at this juncture, based on a careful review of his record, I do not have that confidence, and for that reason I will vote no and would urge my colleagues to vote no on this confirmation.”