Media Matters will continue to update this post with new examples as they occur.

Right-Wing Media Support Republican Senators' Pledge To Block Obama Nominee Garland From Hearing And Vote

President Obama Named Judge Merrick Garland As His Nominee To The Supreme Court. On March 16, President Obama named Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Garland has served on the D.C. Circuit since 1997. [The New York Times, 3/16/16]

GOP Senators “Vow Not To Consider Garland” To Fill SCOTUS Vacancy. In keeping with their promise to block any Supreme Court nominee following Justice Antonin Scalia's death, some GOP senators maintained their stance after Garland's nomination was announced. Senate Judiciary Republicans said “they would not hold a hearing with Garland” because they “want the next president to appoint the new justice,” according to USA Today. The paper listed Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Mike Lee (R-UT) as opposing hearings. [USA Today, 3/17/16]

Right-Wing Media Demand Senate Republicans Refuse To Consider Garland Or Anyone Else. Conservative media figures demanded that Senate Republicans “stand firm” after Obama said he would nominate a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and reiterated their opposition to moving forward with a nomination after Obama selected Garland. [Media Matters, 2/16/16; Media Matters, 3/16/16]

Prominent Conservative Lawyers Support Garland Nomination And Urge Senate Republicans To Allow A Confirmation Vote

President Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: “Give Judge Garland A Vote.” In a March 16 USA Today op-ed, former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, who served as the attorney general under George W. Bush, called for Senate Republicans to allow a floor vote for Garland, writing that “instead of simply refusing to act, I urge Senate Republicans, when prepared, to provide a hearing and floor vote” :

With due respect to my fellow Republicans, this is not only about allowing American voters to express their will. Many voters are truly uninformed about the role or work of the Supreme Court, and relatively few will cast their vote based on a presidential nominee's views of the court. Rather, this fight is much more about the future direction of the jurisprudence of this country and the application of the Constitution to our daily lives. However, instead of simply refusing to act, I urge Senate Republicans, when prepared, to provide a hearing and floor vote. The president has nominated someone who is capable of doing the job by virtue of intellect, education and experience. Judge Garland has a reputation for integrity and likely has the character to withstand the scrutiny that comes with the confirmation process. So if Republican senators were to oppose his nomination it would legitimately be based on ideology or the manner in which the nominee will discharge his oath as a federal judge. [USA Today, 3/16/16]

Former George H.W. Bush Solicitor General Kenneth Starr: “The President Has Made A Very Wise Choice” With Garland. Former George H.W. Bush Solicitor General Kenneth Starr released a statement in support of Garland's nomination:

The President has made a very wise choice. Chief Judge Garland is a brilliant jurist who believes in and upholds the rule of law undergirding our constitutional republic. I have known him well for many years. He is superbly qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. [Baylor University, 3/16/16]

Libertarian Lawyer Jonathan Adler: “I Would Vote To Confirm Garland.” Libertarian lawyer Jonathan Adler wrote on The Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy blog that Garland has “impeccable credentials” and is “incredibly well-respected and has a reputation as a moderate liberal judge.” Adler added that he has “always supported the prompt consideration and confirmation of all qualified judicial nominees” and that, “were I in the Senate I would vote to confirm Garland to the Supreme Court” :

There are several notable things about Garland. First, he has impeccable credentials. He has served on the D.C. Circuit since 1997, when he was nominated by President Clinton, and has been the court's chief since 2013. Before becoming a judge, he served in the Justice Department in both the Carter and Clinton administrations and also worked for Arnold & Porter. He also served as a law clerk to Justice William Brennan and Judge Henry Friendly. Garland is incredibly well-respected and has a reputation as a moderate liberal judge. On the D.C. Circuit, Garland tends to write and join narrow opinions that rarely break new ground. His decisions tend to hew closely to applicable precedent and (where possible) avoid larger questions, and are generally devoid of ideological thrusts or rhetorical flourish. In this sense, he is the consummate appellate judge. [...] For what it's worth, were I in the Senate I would vote to confirm Garland to the Supreme Court, but I've always supported the prompt consideration and confirmation of all qualified judicial nominees. The Senate, however, has not hewed to this view for quite some time, so I am not ready to predict that Garland will be confirmed. But whatever course the Senate takes, I hope that Garland is treated with respect. #NoBorking. [The Washington Post, The Volokh Conspiracy, 3/16/16]

George W. Bush Judicial Nominee Miguel Estrada: “Judge Garland Is Astronomically Qualified And Should Be Confirmed.” On the March 20 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, Miguel Estrada, who was nominated by President George W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, endorsed Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court, calling him “astronomically qualified” and saying that like any high-quality nominee, “we should give him a hearing and confirm him” :

JOHN DICKERSON (HOST): Miguel, what do you make of the Republican strategy to just block? MIGUEL ESTRADA: Well, look, let me get started with my view which is to say, when president puts somebody who is a qualified person, the Senate should give him a hearing and get him through. And I think Judge Garland is astronomically qualified and should be confirmed. The strategy is a political strategy, and it made enormous sense for Leader McConnell to do before the announcement, because it forced the White House to come to the table and put on the table the best-qualified person that is the most attractive to the Republican Party. If the party were 20 points ahead in the polls and we were united behind a Republican nominee who was clearly conservative, the strategy might continue to make sense. Everybody knows that that's not the case, and when we come to the primaries in June, and it's clear that at best we're going to have a messy contested convention, I think there will be number of Republican senators who will take second look at this and say, you know, it's a high-quality person, we should give him a hearing and confirm him. [CBS, Face the Nation, 3/20/16]

George W. Bush Associate Counsel Richard Painter: “It Is Time For The Senate To Consider The Garland Nomination.” In a March 23 New York Times op-ed, Richard Painter, who served as associate counsel in President George W. Bush's White House Counsel Office, said Bush would have chosen a “consensus candidate” like Garland if he had faced a similar vacancy during his presidency. Painter called for the Senate to consider Garland's confirmation and give him a hearing and a vote:

As the chief ethics lawyer in the White House Counsel Office, I helped President George W. Bush with the nomination and confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. We were fortunate to have a Republican-controlled Senate at the time. ... Things would have been somewhat different if President Bush had needed to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during his last two years in office, when Democrats controlled the Senate. (Added this stuff so it's clear what “this situation” is referencing) [...] The best option in this situation is for the president to nominate a consensus candidate. The president should choose someone like Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whom President Reagan later nominated. Judge Garland is just the kind of candidate we would have advised President Bush to nominate if he had been in this situation. A proven moderate, he has enjoyed widespread Republican support in the past. As a former prosecutor, he is often sympathetic to the prosecution in criminal cases. He has aggressively and thoroughly prosecuted terrorists. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, who is an expert on the Constitution as well as the confirmation process, admires him. Judge Garland is exactly the type of person who might have been chosen by the Bush administration if a Supreme Court nomination had been submitted to a Democratic-controlled Senate. Like the Kennedy nomination in 1987, a Garland nomination is a good way for a president to get the job done. [...] It is time for the Senate to consider the Garland nomination. Judge Garland should get exactly what Justice Alito got in 2006: a hearing, perhaps with some bluster along the way, but a vote in the end, and confirmation. [The New York Times, 3/23/16]

Former U.S. Court Of Appeals Judge Michael Chertoff: “I Was Pleased For The Country” By Garland Pick. Along with serving as homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff was also assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's criminal division under President George W. Bush, and was appointed to the United States Court Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was also a law school classmate of Garland's and has long been friends with the judge. In a March 16 interview on WBUR's All Things Considered, Chertoff praised President Obama's nomination of Garland:

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: I was really pleased for him. I was pleased for the country. I felt that this was by any standard a really outstanding pick. And I cherish the court and I think it's important that the people who are selected to be on it continue to maintain the high standard that we have made our judiciary really the envy of the world. [WBUR, All Things Considered, 3/16/16]

Former George W. Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson: “Judge Garland Is Precisely The Kind Of Jurist We Want On The Supreme Court.” In an April 28 Wall Street Journal op-ed, ​Ted Olson, who served as Solicitor General under George W. Bush​,​ wrote that Judge Garland ​​"​is ​extraordinarily well qualified" and “has impressed his colleagues and his legal adversaries with his leadership, sense of fairness, and respect for the law.” ​ Olson​ added​, “By temperament, character and qualifications, Judge Garland is precisely the kind of jurist we want on the Supreme Court​” ​: ​​

The relentless partisan warfare over Supreme Court appointments, including the latest manifestation involving Judge Merrick Garland, is disheartening, damaging to the court and corrosive to civil discourse. The Supreme Court renders 70 to 80 decisions every year, 20% to 30% of them highly controversial. Public acceptance of contentious outcomes, even from those who strongly disagree, is important to the stability of our Republic. And the public’s willingness to accept decisions depends on the court’s moral authority, independence, reputation and integrity. [...] As unlikely as it might be, Republicans could make Merrick Garland’s nomination a turning point. But it cannot be a unilateral cease-fire. If they are willing to consider Mr. Garland on the merits, Democrats would in exchange have to commit to consider future Supreme Court nominees with the same level of courtesy, decency and respect when a Republican occupies the White House. It helps that Mr. Garland is extraordinarily well qualified. He amassed outstanding records in our finest educational institutions, held clerkships after law school with highly regarded jurists, attained a partnership with a respected Washington, D.C., law firm, and held top positions in the Justice Department, including supervising the difficult, delicate and successful prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing case. Throughout his career, he has impressed his colleagues and his legal adversaries with his leadership, sense of fairness, and respect for the law. He has been a judge for 19 years and is now chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, considered by many to be the second-most-important court in the country. Scalia and three current justices also served on the D.C. circuit. By temperament, character and qualifications, Judge Garland is precisely the kind of jurist we want on the Supreme Court. [The Wall Street Journal, 4/28/16]

Bipartisan Group Of Former Solicitors General: “We Write Collectively In Support Of Judge Merrick Garland’s Qualifications” To Serve On Supreme Court. A bipartisan group of former solicitors general, including Republicans Kenneth Starr, Ted Olson, Paul Clement, and Gregory Garre, penned a letter to Sens. Grassley, McConnell, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Harry Reid (D-NV), expressing their support of Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court: