When Justice Scalia died in February 2016, why didn't Obama nominate a progressive replacement while he still could instead of risking that the succeeding president nominates a conservative one, which ended being the case when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch? Obama had almost a year to nominate him but didn't, allowing to lose a progressive seat on the SCOTUS.

  • 3
    Why the mass downvotes? Jun 28 at 13:54
  • 9
    Bare minimum of research is expected. It is trivial to find the answer to this question literally within seconds of searching. The point of this site is not to regurgitate answers that can trivially be found on Wikipedia
    – eps
    Jun 28 at 14:50
  • 1
    @eps Are you sure? That policy would differ from the main site Stack Overflow, which does encourage concise questions/answers even if they are easily found elsewhere.
    – user253751
    Jun 28 at 14:55
  • 1
    @barrycarter: "Why X didn't happen" when X did happen generally attracts downvotes on any SE sites. It's hard to know if the OP is badly informed or trying to argue some obscure semantics/language/procedure point etc.
    – Fizz
    Jun 28 at 22:19
  • 1
    @barrycarter: The question is un-answerable. President Obama did nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia, so the question why he did not do that is non-sensical. Also, this question has 34142 registered users and the question has 8 downvotes. That means 0.0234% of users downvoted the question. Or, 5.5% of users who read the question. That doesn't sound "mass" to me. Jun 29 at 6:52

1 Answer 1


He did nominate Merrick Garland but the Republican majority senate decided to do nothing about that nomination with the reason given that it was to close to the election. This behavior of the senate was highly controversial at the time. They said it was up to the voters to decide the next president who would fill that spot and after Trump won he picked Neil Gorsuch who filled the empty slot.

On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to succeed Antonin Scalia, who had died one month earlier. At the time of his nomination, Garland was the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

This vacancy arose during Obama's final year as president. Hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would consider any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president—to be elected later that year.[1][2][3] Senate Democrats criticized the move as being unprecedented, and responded saying that there was sufficient time to vote on a nominee before the election.[4]

Scalia's death brought about an unusual, but not unprecedented, situation in which a Democratic president had the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice while the Republicans controlled the United States Senate. Before 2016, such a situation had last arisen in 1895, when a Republican-led Senate confirmed Democrat Grover Cleveland's nomination of Rufus Wheeler Peckham to the Court in a voice vote;[5][6] conversely, in 1988 a Democratic-led Senate had confirmed Republican Ronald Reagan's nomination of Anthony Kennedy and in 1991, a Senate held 57–43 by Democrats nevertheless confirmed Justice Clarence Thomas.[7]: 75–83  Political commentators at the time widely recognized Scalia as one of the most conservative members of the Court, and noted that—while many considered Merrick Garland a centrist, and he had been called "essentially the model, neutral judge"[8]—a replacement less conservative than Scalia could have shifted the Court's ideological balance for many years into the future. The confirmation of Garland would have given Democratic appointees a majority on the Supreme Court for the first time since the 1970 confirmation of Harry Blackmun.[9]

The 11 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Republican majority refused to conduct the hearings necessary to advance the vote to the Senate at large, and Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress, 293 days after it had been submitted to the Senate.[10] This marked the first time since the Civil War that a nominee whose nomination had not been withdrawn had failed to receive consideration for an open seat on the Court.[11] Obama's successor, Donald Trump (a Republican), nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy on January 31, 2017, soon after taking office.[10]

  • 12
    Relevant to the controversial nature of the Republican senate's decision to delay the confirmation - when Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on the 18th of September 2020, less than 2 months before the 2020 election, the Republican president's nominee was quickly confirmed to the court within that short period of a few weeks. This was in stark contrast to Mitch McConnell's statement in 2016 that a nomination in March of an election year (8 months before the election) was too close to the election and should be decided by voters.
    – Kayndarr
    Jun 28 at 7:49
  • 2
    @Kayndarr And it should be noted that voting had already started taking place in the 2020 election.
    – Joe W
    Jun 28 at 12:10
  • 1
    Turns out politics is a shady business. There are no "good guys."
    – acpilot
    Jul 2 at 4:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .