Exam Question: Garland Nomination

Here is a problem concerning justiciability based upon an exam question from a few years ago.  Here is the relevant section of the Constitution that deals with the merits of the claim (assuming the issue is justiciable):

Art. II, section 2:

 [The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law

 Here is the exam question:


On February 13, 2016, Justice Scalia died. His death created a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States.

In March of 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, who currently serves as chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. However, Senate Republicans – who comprise the majority and control the Judiciary Committee - have refused to hold a hearing or a vote on Garland’s nomination, pledging instead to wait until after the 2016 election to consider a replacement for Scalia’s seat.

Suppose, before the November election probably mooted his case, Judge Garland filed a lawsuit in federal court against Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell seeking a writ of mandamus to require the Senate to hold hearings and a final vote on the Garland nomination.

Prior to the election of November 2016, was this case justiciable? Explain. Whether justiciable or not, explain the issues on the merits of Judge Garland’s claim. Please limit your answers to approximately 750 words or less but be sure to explain your conclusions with supporting reasoning.