Catholic GOP Governor of Nevada Being Vetted for SCOTUS


Brian Sandoval, the centrist Republican governor of Nevada, is being vetted by the White House for a possible nomination to the Supreme Court, according to two people familiar with the process.
Sandoval is increasingly viewed by some key Democrats as perhaps the only nominee President Obama could select who would be able to break a Republican blockade in the Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before November’s election, saying the decision ought to be left to the next president.
The White House declined to comment Wednesday for this story. White House press secretary Josh Earnest has emphasized in recent days that the president has not arrived at a short list of potential nominees.
The nomination of a GOP governor — albeit one with a bipartisan record — could break that resolve.
Sandoval met Monday with Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid, a fellow Nevadan with whom he enjoys cordial relations.
A person familiar with the conversation said that while Sandoval told Reid he had not made a final decision on whether he would accept a Supreme Court nomination, he would allow the vetting process to move forward. Another person in Nevada familiar with the process confirmed that the process is underway.
Sandoval could not immediately be reached for comment.


Sandoval’s positions on the issues:


I had to look up his record in your link because he was elected after I moved from Nevada and the only thing I remembered about him was his being against Yucca Mountain, which I was happy about.

I see he’s pro choice though. Which means that there is no way the Republican senate is going to approve him.

He also seems to like government programs.


Just seeing a comment there from a user call mmk99, who says in part that “Mitch’s hard line stance is already paying dividends” and goes on to name two probably more liberal persons who would not be confirmed in all likelihood, I wonder if one of the reasons Republicans are taking this hard-line stance is because they think it could yield a more moderate nominee pick. If they just said yes there will be hearings etc. there is surely more chance of a liberal being chosen as the nominee. If they take more hard-line approach, and in this year, it’s probably more likely that a more moderate nominee is chosen.


There is no way someone **not **prochoice would be nominated. It seems that for the Democrats, that is the one nonnegotiable issue.

Which means the gridlock will go on.



Thanks for posting.


It is amazing what democrats consider “moderate” to be


Indeed. It’s hard right now to see any candidate getting a 60-vote filibuster-proof confirmation by the Senate. May be even tougher after the November election if the Democrats gain some seats as expected. And it’s about the principle of who does the nomination, not so much as to who the nominee is.


I think that Hillary Clinton will be elected President, particularly if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. This will likely be the most moderate nominee for the Supreme Court that Republicans will see, particularly if the Democrats win back the Senate in 2016, which seems very possible.


Unfortunately, this is probably correct.


Actually, the Republican party in Nevada seems to be watered down due to the vices in Nevada.

I thought some pundit conjectured Trump might pick a Hispanic, I don’t think Trump has mentioned that name. Trump talked of overturning Roe V. Wade.


Trump draws big big audiences, it’s hard to discount Trump losing. I know a lot of people like to do so and cite polls but I’m not so sure.


Worst of all worlds. Another Justice Kennedy. Dems will gag themselves if this is President Obama’s nominee.


Brian Sandoval on Abortion

Pro-choice but late-term restrictions & no federal funding. (Nov 2010)
Opposes federal abortion funding. (Aug 2010)

Brian Sandoval on Immigration

Greatest duty as judge: oath of citizenship to new Americans. (Aug 2012)
I oppose amnesty; enforce our laws. (Nov 2010)

Sounds like the kind of Justice that Trump would nominate.


Not the worst. A Justice Ginsberg would be the worst, or another Kagan.

It’s interesting though, that Dems would even pose this because it shows nothing really matters to them but abortion.


Both sides are not really moderate to begin with.


You know justice Scalia liked kagan as a nominee.


As a potential S.C. Justice or as a person? He also liked Ginsberg as a person, but was the polar opposite of her in philosophy.


D language.
“moderate” means “agrees with everything in the Dem party platform”.

Much like how “compromise” means “give us everything we want and you get nothing.”


If I remember correctly he wanted her as a justice.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit