The "Justices" on the Supreme Court should be about JUSTICE not voting based of their political ideology. Liberals want to load the Court with their kind and Conservatives want to load the Court with their kind. It is not about JUSTICE. It is about Political ideology. If you know the political ideology of the justices on the court you know what their decisions will be before they "hear" the case.
Eliminate the Supreme Court and save the money to reduce the federal debt.
Submitted by LM (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 4:57pm
When we have an era that is against everything our Lord Jesus Christ stands for we will only fall under the judgment if the wrong justice is appointed Our greatest hope is if we have a court that will recognize right over evil and that our nation is only great because we have included the Lord in all of our activities.
Submitted by Don Stuva (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 5:24pm
To start with Jesus doesn't run the country men do. If the Republicans run the country based on their religious beliefs and not in the way it is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution then Sheria Law Christian style is in the works. I don't want anyone running the country based on what different men have written I an ancient text nor do I want someone's beliefs running the country. I want it ran according to the Constitution.
Submitted by EH (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 6:26pm
Jim, it's obvious you don't know the rights and responsibilities of POTUS. Ken, you are right on target. POTUS can and should nominate and the nominee should have a hearing. That doesn't mean Congress has to approve the nominee.
Submitted by Mike D. (not verified) : Mar 19, 2016 9:25am
His stand on gun rights is more than enough to disqualify him from the Court but the Republicans are doing the correct thing by not giving him consideration until after the election just like the Democrats have done in the past.
Submitted by Ed Daily (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 5:34pm
I would not trust her to do anything. Even if half of what you read about her is true, it would be enough never trust her to do anything. I'm an Army and Air Force vet.
Submitted by Leonard gilpin (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 7:05pm
The way things are going for the Republican party they may have to wait 8 or more years before they get the chance to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. The Republicans are trying to destroy the party. Obama has selected a moderate nominee; Hillary will select a liberal. With luck we will get a fair-minded justice who observes the most fundamental of principles: The Golden Rule.
Submitted by LM (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 10:35pm
We are always being told we should be worried about gun control. Is that an excuse being used to divert our attention away from rights they are actually taking away from us? So far not a single gun has been taken away from anyone, not even the potential terrorist on Home Land Security's Watch List.
Submitted by EH (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 6:46pm
Actually there are more guns in this country now than when Obama took office. The last time I went to a gun show I heard a lot of talk about Obama wanting to take our guns but in reality the gun dealers made out like bandits. The demand increased and therefore the prices went up. Obama became the gun dealers' best friend. Nobody has come to my door asking me to turn in my weapons. When that starts then the third revolution will begin.
Submitted by LM (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 10:50pm
He spells trouble! The left in this country do not like
the U.S. Constitution and have been at work for decades trying to undermine it rather than defend it. The First and Second Amendments will go first! Garland should not sit on
the Supreme Court. The Constitution is not a "living, breathing" document. It is etched in granite!
Submitted by Michael Noonan (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 5:36pm
Most Business contracts you sign when you enter into an agreement with a corporation take away certain constitutional rights. These contracts are drafted by lobbies that buy influence from Republican and Democratic politicians. Now, do you really think there is a dimes worth of difference between the 2 parties?
Submitted by EH (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 6:56pm
Anyone Obama nominates is going to have a liberal bias. Another problem he is to old to begin a lifetime appointment. He is also anti-gun and anti 2nd amendment. Probably be best to wait until lame duck Obama moves on.
Submitted by LarryDusmcvet (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 6:09pm
I strongly disagree with your opinion that a 63 year old nominee to the Supreme Court is too old. Most would agree that wisdom comes with age. He statistically has many good years left in his life, and ageism has claimed too many victims in our workforce and should not be a consideration here.
Submitted by Robert Cole (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 6:43pm
The President should be able to nominate who he wants as per the Constitution. Many brave soldiers died to defend it! Let not the bi-partisan extremist of both parties bend what we have fought for. The checks and balances are in place for due process. Let it work as it is intended.
Submitted by D T (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 6:43pm
If our Country is attacked tomorrow, as viciously or worse than it was on 9/11, would the Senate and House encourage our Chief Executive/Commander in Chief to wait patiently until next January when his replacement took charge to retaliate? What if there were repeated attacks? The Senate is paid whether or not they choose to work. Right now they are refusing to do the job they were elected to do. Partisan pettiness is their only focus. Sadly, much of our membership seems to endorse this policy if it fulfills their personal agendas or allays their fears, real or imagined.
Submitted by Jim Creagan (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 7:23pm
The Senate Democrats enacted a rule to prevent President Eisenhower from appointing a Justice during the last year of his first term back in the '50s and have reiterated it ever since. Senator Obama participated in the same activity during President Bush's term in office. Live by your rules - hard cheese.
Submitted by BobCan (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 7:43pm
Vetting and entire process should be followed THAT is why we have a Constitution with 3 distinct branches of the government, to include checks and balances if there are any problems they should come out during the Congressional approval process
can you spell..... the last four letters of.....AmerICAN,,,, RepublICAN.... DemocRATS. NOW who do you want to pick next justice? And how about EH "Jesus does not run the country" Really? and you wonder how come we are falling apart....Lets see 1.GOD made man and woman, GOD made wine, GOD made mary-J. Man made... boy on boy, cigarettes, and whiskey. Who do you trust?
Submitted by willy (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 8:12pm
It has been verified many times, that modern Americans unfortunately do not vote on facts but rather on opinions/rumors. This is a big part of the problems we have in this country today.
Submitted by James Sutton (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 8:28pm
Even though there is no law nor rule concerning this, it seems that the "custom" has been established and should be honored, regardless of who is in office. Our country is not a Christian nation nor a Muslim, Hindu, or "Other" nation. However, as is found in the writings of our founding fathers, our Constitution is based on Christian values and practices. When we have totally driven out those values and practices, then our country will no longer exist and chaos will consume us all.
Submitted by Jim McCoid (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 8:55pm
And those Christian values are based on/rooted in Jewish values. So should all the Justices be Jews? The Constitution is religiously neutral, and so the appointments should be. As an aside, statistics show that by 2050 the US will no longer be majority WASP. How ya gonna handle that?
Submitted by JD Marksheid (not verified) : Mar 18, 2016 11:18am
I am not near afraid of the gov. taking my 870 shot guns away as I am about the 1st amendment being stripped away. And do the flag flying bible thumpers really think Jesus approves of children and elderly being denied medical care? And "repeal Obamacare" has been all we have heard out of that bunch.
Submitted by Dale C. Coenen (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 9:24pm
The person nominated looks as qualified or more than any other Judge.
This election foolishness is doing to end up creating the end to the Republican Party. We need a two party system to function well so let's get on with the business of caring for our Country. One person with an anti-gun opinion won't change it for the entire Country so why foolishly refuse to approve someone on what you "perceive" a person will do on one single issue. We all served this Country with duty and honor so let's encourage others to get back to the business of electing a highly qualified candidate. Then we all need to assist in repairing the party of Lincoln before it totally self-destructs. We know better than to act on partial information or foolish comments presented as truth without supporting documentation. Let's follow the Constitution that many of our family members died to preserve. KAREN
Submitted by Karen Miriam Ch... (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 9:34pm
Karen, His record on gun control issues is not a "perception". He has stated his views before on gun control and on the bench he has the ability to change the second amendment.
Submitted by Reb1 (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 10:13pm
Karen, The two party system is what is destroying this country. The politicians are puppets for their parties and neither one cares about the average American. Do away with the parties, lifetime jobs and big monies for politicians so we can vote for representatives that will represent the people.
Submitted by Milt R (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 10:34pm
Karen Remember this so called president trashes the constitution for seven years to get what he wants. NOW that the constitution works in his favor to appoint a justice he is all gong ho Dont be misled by this appointees credintials .He is from chcago obummer teritory paid by obummer money and is a left wing liberallike obummer.And remember obummer was said to have qualifying credentials for president and look what this country got.
Submitted by Mike DeMarzio (not verified) : Mar 18, 2016 12:50pm
I'm a registered Republican. Angry, I don't think so. Uninformed not even close. I really love it when I get under the skin of a person who can't defend his/her position and only parrots what Mr. Rush L. says. Remember this Mr. Daily. I've forgotten more than you will ever know.
Submitted by EH (not verified) : Mar 19, 2016 1:53am
Its about time these self centered republican's stop manipulating our constitution and allow the president to complete his duties and give us a supreme court justice as is his duty!!!
Submitted by Mr. TerryS. (not verified) : Mar 17, 2016 10:40pm
The president needs to do his job, but Im sick and tired of political agenda first, the Republic second. No muslims, no anti- constitutionalists, on donations by George Soros,the U.N. etc.. I WANT A PURE AMERICAN! NO DIRT!
Submitted by Don Komer (not verified) : Mar 18, 2016 6:08am
Since there no law or constitutional amendment that state the sitting President can not make an appointment to SCOTUS during their last year in office therefore the President should his job . The people made a
statement when the President was elected in the election 2012. If there was an amendment I would agree but since there none, do the job they were elected to do and not rule by obstruction.
Submitted by KeithH (not verified) : Mar 18, 2016 12:55pm
Enough Harvard Domination of The Supreme Court, unless you want to issue The three Yale Judges a Yale-Lock for the Court. 60% Harvard 30% Yale. Not fair to all the other
Law-Schools in this Country!
Submitted by AMOS DEWITT (not verified) : Mar 18, 2016 1:28pm
Republicans have it half right. Presidential elections should determine who gets to nominate for the Supreme Court. In 2012, we had an election for President and chose who gets to do that until January 2017. Obama did his constitutional duty to nominated. That doesn't relieve the Senate of its constitutional duty to advise and consent. That's called hearings and a vote. If Senate Republicans want to vote against the qualifications of Obama's nominee. Then we will have a chance to vote on 1/3 of them in November.
Submitted by Ken Losey (not verified) : Mar 18, 2016 2:58pm
I agree. The precedence should be the president fulfilling the obligation of that position by making a nomination. The Senate can then vote up/down. Here is another example of our government delay, delay, delay. Get the job done an move ahead.
Submitted by JHealy (not verified) : Mar 20, 2016 10:36am
I know nothing of the man's qualifications, however, I do belief Obama is trying to shore up his legacy by making last ditch efforts and nominating someone who's qualifications aren't apparent to the American people. If Garland's credentials are as impeccable as some people say, then nominating him after the election should withstand the short period of time between now and then.
Submitted by Jim Cooper (not verified) : Mar 18, 2016 8:04pm
This particular nominee would be a disaster to the United States and its citizens. He is no Moderate, He is Liberal through and through. The Supreme Court should be voting based on "The Constitution" not their own political ideology. The Bench should be somewhat balanced in it's ideologies as well. Isn't the judicial branch supposed to be part of our checks and balances to run the Government? POTUS can and could nominate a justice but, He and His Fellow Democrats stood up against President G.W. Bush and said the same thing the Republicans are saying now about blocking the nominee. That is fair game. POTUS did not need to be so hasty in making this nomination or at least throw out a truly moderate candidate for this important spot on the bench! We, the U.S. of A., are in trouble if the High Court was all Liberal!!!
Submitted by Raymond Zeigler (not verified) : Mar 19, 2016 5:04pm
Careful what you wish for. Wait until the next President is elected and it just might be HRC making the pick, and it won't be a "moderate" like this guy.
Submitted by Flatulent Fred (not verified) : Mar 21, 2016 2:17pm
It is the job of Congress to consider and vet ANY nominee the President brings forth. He could submit George Clooney for all I care. They don't have to agree with the choice, can certainly decide to not choose his pick, but they have to do their job as set forth in the Constitution. This is setting a very bad precedent.
Submitted by Just a guy. (not verified) : May 10, 2016 1:47am
Comments
The "Justices" on the Supreme
The "Justices" on the Supreme Court should be about JUSTICE not voting based of their political ideology. Liberals want to load the Court with their kind and Conservatives want to load the Court with their kind. It is not about JUSTICE. It is about Political ideology. If you know the political ideology of the justices on the court you know what their decisions will be before they "hear" the case.
Eliminate the Supreme Court and save the money to reduce the federal debt.
When we have an era that is
When we have an era that is against everything our Lord Jesus Christ stands for we will only fall under the judgment if the wrong justice is appointed Our greatest hope is if we have a court that will recognize right over evil and that our nation is only great because we have included the Lord in all of our activities.
To start with Jesus doesn't
To start with Jesus doesn't run the country men do. If the Republicans run the country based on their religious beliefs and not in the way it is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution then Sheria Law Christian style is in the works. I don't want anyone running the country based on what different men have written I an ancient text nor do I want someone's beliefs running the country. I want it ran according to the Constitution.
Jim, it's obvious you don't
Jim, it's obvious you don't know the rights and responsibilities of POTUS. Ken, you are right on target. POTUS can and should nominate and the nominee should have a hearing. That doesn't mean Congress has to approve the nominee.
The US Senate could interview
The US Senate could interview him, and vote on him. We know that he will not be accepted, but the Senate is then playing by the rules.
He's a disaster for the 2nd
He's a disaster for the 2nd Amendment and veterans alike. His voting record is abysmal on both counts.
He's a disaster for the 2nd
He's a disaster for the 2nd Amendment and veterans alike. His voting record is abysmal on both counts.
What is his voting record.
What is his voting record. Do you actually know it or did Rush L. give you his opinion of it this morning.
Finally someone has nominated
Finally someone has nominated a Moderate. Although with our elected fanatics (both parties) in Congress his chances are as good as a snowball in hell.
Right man, wrong time!
Right man, wrong time!
His stand on gun rights is
His stand on gun rights is more than enough to disqualify him from the Court but the Republicans are doing the correct thing by not giving him consideration until after the election just like the Democrats have done in the past.
Yes, I think it would be
Yes, I think it would be better for Hillary to appoint who she wants on the court.
I would not trust her to do
I would not trust her to do anything. Even if half of what you read about her is true, it would be enough never trust her to do anything. I'm an Army and Air Force vet.
Me too.
Me too.
The way things are going for
The way things are going for the Republican party they may have to wait 8 or more years before they get the chance to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. The Republicans are trying to destroy the party. Obama has selected a moderate nominee; Hillary will select a liberal. With luck we will get a fair-minded justice who observes the most fundamental of principles: The Golden Rule.
He should not be considered
He should not be considered because of his stanch on gun control.He doers not believe in the Constitution.
We are always being told we
We are always being told we should be worried about gun control. Is that an excuse being used to divert our attention away from rights they are actually taking away from us? So far not a single gun has been taken away from anyone, not even the potential terrorist on Home Land Security's Watch List.
Actually there are more guns
Actually there are more guns in this country now than when Obama took office. The last time I went to a gun show I heard a lot of talk about Obama wanting to take our guns but in reality the gun dealers made out like bandits. The demand increased and therefore the prices went up. Obama became the gun dealers' best friend. Nobody has come to my door asking me to turn in my weapons. When that starts then the third revolution will begin.
He spells trouble! The left
He spells trouble! The left in this country do not like
the U.S. Constitution and have been at work for decades trying to undermine it rather than defend it. The First and Second Amendments will go first! Garland should not sit on
the Supreme Court. The Constitution is not a "living, breathing" document. It is etched in granite!
Most Business contracts you
Most Business contracts you sign when you enter into an agreement with a corporation take away certain constitutional rights. These contracts are drafted by lobbies that buy influence from Republican and Democratic politicians. Now, do you really think there is a dimes worth of difference between the 2 parties?
Define "the left". Is it
Define "the left". Is it anyone who doesn't agree with you?
That is the perfect
That is the perfect definition of the left. Shut down anyone who doesn't agree with them
Anyone Obama nominates is
Anyone Obama nominates is going to have a liberal bias. Another problem he is to old to begin a lifetime appointment. He is also anti-gun and anti 2nd amendment. Probably be best to wait until lame duck Obama moves on.
you are right
you are right
I strongly disagree with your
I strongly disagree with your opinion that a 63 year old nominee to the Supreme Court is too old. Most would agree that wisdom comes with age. He statistically has many good years left in his life, and ageism has claimed too many victims in our workforce and should not be a consideration here.
Right On Brother
Right On Brother
The President should be able
The President should be able to nominate who he wants as per the Constitution. Many brave soldiers died to defend it! Let not the bi-partisan extremist of both parties bend what we have fought for. The checks and balances are in place for due process. Let it work as it is intended.
Right on
Right on
Democrats including Obama and
Democrats including Obama and many blocked Bush nomination father out saying the same as now....no different same situation!
If our Country is attacked
If our Country is attacked tomorrow, as viciously or worse than it was on 9/11, would the Senate and House encourage our Chief Executive/Commander in Chief to wait patiently until next January when his replacement took charge to retaliate? What if there were repeated attacks? The Senate is paid whether or not they choose to work. Right now they are refusing to do the job they were elected to do. Partisan pettiness is their only focus. Sadly, much of our membership seems to endorse this policy if it fulfills their personal agendas or allays their fears, real or imagined.
Wouldn't have to! He wouldn't
Wouldn't have to! He wouldn't act anyway....draw a line in the sand!!!
I agree with the line in the
I agree with the line in the sand...still waiting to see it stepped over.
The Senate Democrats enacted
The Senate Democrats enacted a rule to prevent President Eisenhower from appointing a Justice during the last year of his first term back in the '50s and have reiterated it ever since. Senator Obama participated in the same activity during President Bush's term in office. Live by your rules - hard cheese.
Vetting and entire process
Vetting and entire process should be followed THAT is why we have a Constitution with 3 distinct branches of the government, to include checks and balances if there are any problems they should come out during the Congressional approval process
can you spell..... the last
can you spell..... the last four letters of.....AmerICAN,,,, RepublICAN.... DemocRATS. NOW who do you want to pick next justice? And how about EH "Jesus does not run the country" Really? and you wonder how come we are falling apart....Lets see 1.GOD made man and woman, GOD made wine, GOD made mary-J. Man made... boy on boy, cigarettes, and whiskey. Who do you trust?
The middle letters of your
The middle letters of your name wILLy might make one sick.
I'm not 100% sure who I trust
I'm not 100% sure who I trust. I can say that I don't trust someone who knows so much about whiskey and boy on boy.
It has been verified many
It has been verified many times, that modern Americans unfortunately do not vote on facts but rather on opinions/rumors. This is a big part of the problems we have in this country today.
Even though there is no law
Even though there is no law nor rule concerning this, it seems that the "custom" has been established and should be honored, regardless of who is in office. Our country is not a Christian nation nor a Muslim, Hindu, or "Other" nation. However, as is found in the writings of our founding fathers, our Constitution is based on Christian values and practices. When we have totally driven out those values and practices, then our country will no longer exist and chaos will consume us all.
And those Christian values
And those Christian values are based on/rooted in Jewish values. So should all the Justices be Jews? The Constitution is religiously neutral, and so the appointments should be. As an aside, statistics show that by 2050 the US will no longer be majority WASP. How ya gonna handle that?
I am not near afraid of the
I am not near afraid of the gov. taking my 870 shot guns away as I am about the 1st amendment being stripped away. And do the flag flying bible thumpers really think Jesus approves of children and elderly being denied medical care? And "repeal Obamacare" has been all we have heard out of that bunch.
The person nominated looks as
The person nominated looks as qualified or more than any other Judge.
This election foolishness is doing to end up creating the end to the Republican Party. We need a two party system to function well so let's get on with the business of caring for our Country. One person with an anti-gun opinion won't change it for the entire Country so why foolishly refuse to approve someone on what you "perceive" a person will do on one single issue. We all served this Country with duty and honor so let's encourage others to get back to the business of electing a highly qualified candidate. Then we all need to assist in repairing the party of Lincoln before it totally self-destructs. We know better than to act on partial information or foolish comments presented as truth without supporting documentation. Let's follow the Constitution that many of our family members died to preserve. KAREN
Karen, His record on gun
Karen, His record on gun control issues is not a "perception". He has stated his views before on gun control and on the bench he has the ability to change the second amendment.
Karen, The two party system
Karen, The two party system is what is destroying this country. The politicians are puppets for their parties and neither one cares about the average American. Do away with the parties, lifetime jobs and big monies for politicians so we can vote for representatives that will represent the people.
Karen Remember this so called
Karen Remember this so called president trashes the constitution for seven years to get what he wants. NOW that the constitution works in his favor to appoint a justice he is all gong ho Dont be misled by this appointees credintials .He is from chcago obummer teritory paid by obummer money and is a left wing liberallike obummer.And remember obummer was said to have qualifying credentials for president and look what this country got.
Karen: this one person could
Karen: this one person could change the country forever
It's easy to see that EH is
It's easy to see that EH is just another angry uninformed Democrat. To bad we have so many low information voters.
I'm a registered Republican.
I'm a registered Republican. Angry, I don't think so. Uninformed not even close. I really love it when I get under the skin of a person who can't defend his/her position and only parrots what Mr. Rush L. says. Remember this Mr. Daily. I've forgotten more than you will ever know.
Its about time these self
Its about time these self centered republican's stop manipulating our constitution and allow the president to complete his duties and give us a supreme court justice as is his duty!!!
I Agree with the above
I Agree with the above comment. (Mr Terry S)
With ignorant voters like,
With ignorant voters like, Terry S and Floyd B, showing no knowledge of history, nor the Constitution, America has no chance of a future.
The president needs to do his
The president needs to do his job, but Im sick and tired of political agenda first, the Republic second. No muslims, no anti- constitutionalists, on donations by George Soros,the U.N. etc.. I WANT A PURE AMERICAN! NO DIRT!
The
The
Constitution was written by men of faith and our laws follow the teachings of the Bible. By the way why aren't there any protestants on the court?
This particular nominee would
This particular nominee would be a disaster to the United States and its citizens.
Since there no law or
Since there no law or constitutional amendment that state the sitting President can not make an appointment to SCOTUS during their last year in office therefore the President should his job . The people made a
statement when the President was elected in the election 2012. If there was an amendment I would agree but since there none, do the job they were elected to do and not rule by obstruction.
The president is correct in
The president is correct in his appointment as the law is written, therefor congress should vote on the choice as made.
Enough Harvard Domination of
Enough Harvard Domination of The Supreme Court, unless you want to issue The three Yale Judges a Yale-Lock for the Court. 60% Harvard 30% Yale. Not fair to all the other
Law-Schools in this Country!
Republicans have it half
Republicans have it half right. Presidential elections should determine who gets to nominate for the Supreme Court. In 2012, we had an election for President and chose who gets to do that until January 2017. Obama did his constitutional duty to nominated. That doesn't relieve the Senate of its constitutional duty to advise and consent. That's called hearings and a vote. If Senate Republicans want to vote against the qualifications of Obama's nominee. Then we will have a chance to vote on 1/3 of them in November.
I agree. The precedence
I agree. The precedence should be the president fulfilling the obligation of that position by making a nomination. The Senate can then vote up/down. Here is another example of our government delay, delay, delay. Get the job done an move ahead.
I know nothing of the man's
I know nothing of the man's qualifications, however, I do belief Obama is trying to shore up his legacy by making last ditch efforts and nominating someone who's qualifications aren't apparent to the American people. If Garland's credentials are as impeccable as some people say, then nominating him after the election should withstand the short period of time between now and then.
This particular nominee would
This particular nominee would be a disaster to the United States and its citizens. He is no Moderate, He is Liberal through and through. The Supreme Court should be voting based on "The Constitution" not their own political ideology. The Bench should be somewhat balanced in it's ideologies as well. Isn't the judicial branch supposed to be part of our checks and balances to run the Government? POTUS can and could nominate a justice but, He and His Fellow Democrats stood up against President G.W. Bush and said the same thing the Republicans are saying now about blocking the nominee. That is fair game. POTUS did not need to be so hasty in making this nomination or at least throw out a truly moderate candidate for this important spot on the bench! We, the U.S. of A., are in trouble if the High Court was all Liberal!!!
You have listened to too much
You have listened to too much Rush Limbaugh
Careful what you wish for.
Careful what you wish for. Wait until the next President is elected and it just might be HRC making the pick, and it won't be a "moderate" like this guy.
Not holding a hearing is
Not holding a hearing is constitutional; it is denying consent.
It is the job of Congress to
It is the job of Congress to consider and vet ANY nominee the President brings forth. He could submit George Clooney for all I care. They don't have to agree with the choice, can certainly decide to not choose his pick, but they have to do their job as set forth in the Constitution. This is setting a very bad precedent.