The next Supreme Court Justice should be decided by the American people through their vote for the next U.S. president, Heritage scholar and former Attorney General Ed Meese writes on The decision should not be left up to President Obama.

The people should decide the next justice, Meese argues. When they vote for the next president, they will “not only determine where the American people want their country to go but the direction they want their court to take.”

The American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice but President Obama and his liberal allies in Congress want to deny the public that voice.

The risks of simply accepting President Obama’s appointment are tremendous, he continues:

President Obama has already placed two extremely liberal justices on the court, he will no doubt select someone who would ensure liberal domination of the court for the next generation.

As of now, the court is one vote away from restricting or eliminating Second Amendment rights, one vote away from allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to run amok, one vote away from further restricting or eliminating religious freedom altogether, one vote away from legalizing Partial Birth Abortion, one vote away from giving the IRS free rein to persecute innocent Americans for political purposes.

What do you think? Should the Senate confirm President Obama’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland?

Comments (562)

Ingrid Dohler - March 18, 2016

The replacement for Justice Scalia must be made by the next President, not by President Obama !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Art Nutter - March 18, 2016

No. Agree completely with Meese. Next Supreme Court Justice should be appointed by next US President.

Clarence Jones - March 18, 2016

Hell NO!!!! This should be left up to the new administration, Congress and the legal citizens of the United States of America!!! No way should Obama be able to have a new Supreme Court judge approved this year!!!

Albert Kegley - March 18, 2016

The Senate should not vote

Timothy Docter - March 18, 2016

The Senate Republicans should absolutely stand their ground and deny any hearing for any nomination to the Supreme Court until after the election period.

W. Grant Wright - March 18, 2016

Mitch McConnell and every Republican in the Senate and Congress should not “cave” like they always do. They should hold firm in no even considering a SCOTUS nominee until after the election and inauguration of the next president. For once, I would like to see some backbone from Republican leaders.

Leon Oebel - March 18, 2016

I agree with Meese
Let the people decide

Karen Littell - March 18, 2016

Absolutely not!!!

T Pewitt - March 18, 2016

No, Obama should not be allowed to appoint a new S C. justice, but since when has he ever done anything to not further his anti-Christian, pro Muslim, and socialist agenda.

TED HICKEL - March 18, 2016


Linda Balulis - March 18, 2016

Absolutely Not!!!!!

Bob Wilson - March 18, 2016

No, he shouldn’t. But that presupposes that somehow the Republican Party will get united around an articulate candidate who will sell the conservative vision of the country to win the election in November. Otherwise, this position can backfire resulting in someone like Obama himself being nominated by Hillary. What a depressing thought.

Matthew V. Brown - March 18, 2016

No, I don’t think the Senate should confirm Obama’s appointment of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Niles bishop - March 18, 2016

No way. This is too important to let a president who is leaving office in 10 months to decide.

Ralph Neeley - March 18, 2016

No new Supreme Court Justice until after the election of a new President.

Stanley Nusbaum - March 18, 2016

The new administration should make that choice

Gerald Oliver - March 18, 2016

Do not allow the President select a new Supreme Court appointment.

Shirley Jones - March 18, 2016

Definitely not.

Gerald Dominick - March 18, 2016

Absolutely NO WAY! Obama has already inflicted extreme damage to this country through his liberal actions geared to turn this country into an Islamic nation. We must not let him put another nail in our coffin.

Joan Pilz - March 18, 2016

He should not!

paul kelly - March 18, 2016

NO he should select the next top judge to the supreme court

Cheryl Kelly - March 18, 2016

NO! He has already appointed 2 liberal justices and he desperately wants to change the direction of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately the Supreme Court justices have gone from adhering to the Constitution to being partisan. It’s time the people have a say in the direction of the Supreme Court.

Jesse Acevedo - March 18, 2016

No, the senate should not approve..

Orville G Kuipers - March 18, 2016

There should be no nomination or placement of Supreme Court Judge until the next President of USA takes office.

H J Raehn - March 18, 2016

What do I think? Should the Senate confirm President Obama’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland?
Absolutely not, before the election is conducted. If a non-Republican wins the November 2016 election, then the Senate perhaps should consider Garland.

Jerry Metcalf - March 18, 2016

The Senate must hang tough.
No Hearing No Vote

Beverly kymes - March 18, 2016

The congress should definitely not even hear on any of his nominations. They imust stand up to his attacks, his threats, his ridicule or anything he may bring forth in order to intimidate the republicans! At last congress can act and he cannot use his phone or pen. Stand strong as there is nothing he can do unless we let him

Barbara C. Higgins - March 18, 2016

No, I definitely feel the outgoing President should not decide who should be the next Justice. The people should vote and decide.

James rector - March 18, 2016

The constitution hangs in the balance his 2apts have proven they are partisan not justices if the republican good old boys confirm any one he nominates kiss America good bye along with the rule of law and the 2nd amendment which protects from a tyrant remember fast and furious what is most curious is joe bidens 1992 comments we are living under exc privilege and I am sure their examples the republican could draw from Clarence Thomas Jim rector Fayetteville ga God bless America

Mary - March 18, 2016

No. However, if Hillary wins the Presidency they will have to confirm him as she’ll go either further left when she makes her Supreme Court selection.

Mel. Tanasse - March 18, 2016

No Hell No.

Harry E. Hartman - March 18, 2016

My Response:

Mr. President,

As you have lectured us continually, “ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES”
The co-equal branch U S Senate is controlled by the Republicans and THEY not You set the agenda. Your nominee should not see the light of day while you are in office.

Judy - March 18, 2016

They should go through the motions then reject him based on his liberal views…especially 2nd Amendment.

Marvin & Sharon Ensor - March 18, 2016

We are heart sick the way this country has been rapidly changing under Obama & the Liberals. Our Congress has been a terrible disappointment. if another Supreme court Justice is appointed by Pres. Obama it will be just about the last straw for our constitution.

Robert M - March 18, 2016

Next president should pick next judge.

Roderick Wells - March 18, 2016

I’m hopeful that the senate leadership will stand firm in their commitment of not affirming the next Supreme Court nominee until after the next elected president takes office. I’m not looking forward to becoming an instant criminal by simple ownership of a gun. The EPA being allowed to be even more of a tyrant than they currently are. The list goes on.

evert babb - March 18, 2016

no way

Jeffrey - March 18, 2016

I whole heartedly agree that Obama would use this appointment to do the same thing he has done since taking office, ruining or destroying America in the eyes of our Enemies as well as our Allies and the Trust that the American a people have in their Government! If Hillary is elected President the same thing will happen, we must secure our Nation for those of us that live now and in the Future here in the United States of America,

Anne Newman - March 18, 2016

No, Republicans should never confirm a Democrat president’s nominee.

kevin mcguinness - March 18, 2016

Hell NO.

WilliamJ. Parker - March 18, 2016

I am a conservative. All conservatives should be opposed to filling the Court vacancy until after the election in November

Sinclair Doggett - March 18, 2016

Absolutely NOT !!

Kathleen Long - March 18, 2016

the Senate should NOT confirm President Obama’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland?

Patricia A. Cornell - March 18, 2016

We might as well hang up any “rights” our founding fathers tried to secure for us if a liberal supreme court justice is appointed.

Joe Warman - March 18, 2016

Under no circumstances should the Senate have any hearings or anything else in regards to the Supreme Court until after the election!

Trent - March 18, 2016

This must be left up to the next President after the elections!

Jim Hayes - March 18, 2016

Should wait till the next president takes office !!!!

Stephen Whitney - March 18, 2016

“Just say No.”

Scott Stahl - March 18, 2016

The answer is very very simple( even Obama could/should understand it) let the next President of the United States make this decision!

Peter Walker - March 18, 2016

No the senate should not appoint the next justice no justice hearings until the new president is in office, if they vote this justice in that would make 5 liberals and 4 conservatives no balance and say goodbye to the 2nd amendment.

Mary Wilkinson - March 18, 2016

No confirmation! If they fold on this, we only further confirm that their is no difference between the Dem’s & Rep’s. And, so much for conservative values!

Eric Unks - March 18, 2016

The Senate should not confirm any appointments to the Supreme Court until the newly elected President is in office and has appointed someone.

John Prince - March 18, 2016


Harlan Abernethy - March 18, 2016

If this Lawyer is appointed to the Supreme Court, we may as well hang up our Right to have and bear arms, as Judge Garland is not for our right to bear arms.
Why else would Obama appoint this person to the Bench other than they are out of the same Chicago mold with Bill Ayers and the rest of the gang. .

George Bartenfeld - March 18, 2016

NO -No Obama should have nothing to do wth selecting the new Judge, He has already loaded the supreme court with too many left wing nuts

Mary Barker - March 18, 2016


lester duplessie - March 18, 2016

Obama must not be allowed to appoint the next supreme court judge .

James rector - March 18, 2016

No America hangs in the balance

PATRICK REILLY - March 18, 2016

HELL NO!!!!!

Randy Stabin - March 18, 2016

absolutely not….you should be leading the charge to “call out” on the Dem claims that Senate should “do its job” . clearly and concisely explain why they ARE doing their job.. repeat the cry on all rep. fronts until the dems stop their misrepresentations on the Process

Wade hathcock - March 18, 2016

He. Shouldn’t get to say who sets on the beach

Ronald Sanders - March 18, 2016

There should be NO Supreme Court Justice appointed until after the election! The Democrats are crying foul but they did the same think When G W Bush had 18 months left to serve in his 2nd term! Obama has less time to serve in his second term which gives it even more credence to waiting until the the mext president takes office! God help us if it is Clinton!

John - March 18, 2016

“The American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice but President Obama and his liberal allies in Congress want to deny the public that voice.”

Nobody, but the most frightened conservatives believes this nonsensical mantra. The people have already have already spoken for both the current President, Senate, and House Representative. No body even mentioned this when GWH Bush appointed Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshal thus putting the court on a 180 course.

To argue that future voters have a say in contemporary nomination decisions is nothing but ‘show and tell’. That is not how our system works.

The Joe Biden excuse is also a very lame and lonely claim. That is one of many reasons Trump will own the GOP soon.

Joyce - March 18, 2016

Absolutely not.

Richard A. Shepler, SR - March 18, 2016

Marxist Communism is now rampant and running this country. The so-called “News Media” is nothing more than a Communist Propaganda machine that makes Herman Gerbil look like an amature. Does anyone care? I don’t think so. God help us.

Sandra Fox - March 18, 2016

We cannot allow Obama to appoint another liberal Justice. People say oh we are not going to get rid of the second amendment. It isn’t about eliminating it, it is about interpreting it to mean only the military are allowed weapons. With another liberal Justice that will happen.

Steven Crain - March 18, 2016

I concur with the present position of the Senate to NOT hold hearings. The people have spoken in the last 2 elections (even though their wishes have not been fulfilled). First we gave Republicans the House; nothing happened. Then we gave them the Senate; and nothing happened. It’s obvious the American people had faith in the Republican party but based on inaction are not happy with elected government as is. Senate… wait until the people have spoken once more. Then advise and consent at that time. Hopefully we’ll also have the Presidency.

Roy McClure - March 18, 2016

Do not approve anyone until after the election. The American people deserve the right to choose the direction our country goes.

Robert W Irwin - March 18, 2016

There should be no nomination to SCOTUS until a new president is sworn in. Alexander Hamilton addressed this very issue in Federalist 69 seeking to get the Constitution ratified.

Orville Rolando - March 18, 2016

No appointment until after a new president is elected. We do not need one it is not the law and we do not need another oboma puppet on the supreme Court of America. No No No Nomination

Mrs. Vido Moore - March 18, 2016

The Senate should absolutely NOT confirm
Obama’s appointee. They should do everything in their power not to let this happen. I am not sure why they have not filed impeachment papers by now with all the illegal things he has already done. If they had, they would not be dealing with this now.

Orville Rolando - March 18, 2016

No No No Nomination until the next President is in office

John Algeo - March 18, 2016

I certainly wouldn’t want Obama to appoint another Liberal justice, as that would give him a large hand in the makeup of the next Court.

That said, I do not know of a Constitutional means of prevent him from doing so, as Article III doesn’t appear to specify how a Justice of the Supreme Court is appointed.

Andre McFerrin - March 18, 2016

The people decided in 2012 that any vacancy before January 2017 should be filled by President Obama. Any argument to the contrary has no basis in the constitution we pledge to uphold and is nothing but a partisan power grab. The republicans lost in 2012. Not getting to name judges before at least 2017 is a consequence. Live with it or quit pretending they support the constitution

Joseph J Collins - March 18, 2016

Politics is the art of the possible. Right now, Merrick Garland, a fine jurist, may be the best that we can get. Hillary is poised to win the election. If she does, or appears on the verge of doing so, the Senate should move quickly to give its advice and consent on Garland, who may well be the best we can do. PS: Wish Ed Meese could get the job!

Stepp - March 18, 2016

Absolutely NOT! The people have sent a message that we are exhausted with this administration’s disregard for our welfare, for our country, for our veterans. And certainly we are worn out from justices who interpret law according to personal views rather than checking the Constitution. (Which by the way, we the people have to abide by.)

John Youngblood - March 18, 2016

Absolutely Not

Rebecca Mayo - March 18, 2016

No! Obama should have NO SAY in the next selected appointee for the Supreme Court.

Patricia McCracken - March 18, 2016

The people should decide who is to puck the next Justice. The Senate should NOT have hearings until after the election then the new elected President can nominate in conjunction with President Obama for the Senate’s approval.

Matthew Cooper - March 18, 2016

The Senate should do EVERYTHING within its power to NOT approve ANY selection made by this sitting President. He has, indeed, proven that all of his selections will guarantee our rights to be in jeopardy – rights given by GOD, not man, nor by government.

Patrick R Hill - March 18, 2016

NO to Garland..Obama has ruined this country with his socialist policies. We are one step away from Socialism(Communism if you will) I cannot fathom this country without OUR right to bear arms..if he is confirmed he would most assuredly change that dynamic. Kagan and Sotomeyer should have recused themselves on the Gay marriage debacle but did NOT..I agree..the next president should make the pick..and i pray to GOD it isnt HILLARY!!

Randy Perkins - March 18, 2016

Hell no! The new elected president should be the one that appoints the new Supreme Court Judge. This way the people will have more of a say in the process.

JenniferMoritz - March 18, 2016

No President Obama should not be able to appoint the new Supreme Court Justice. It should be the responsibility of the new President.

Todd Warren - March 18, 2016

Absolutely not! The next Supreme Court Justice should be nominated by the new President elect.

Gary Van Norden - March 18, 2016

No, if Biden thought waiting was the proper thing to do back then, perhaps the same should hold true now. This appointment was done only to promote Obama’s drive to crush our Second Amendment rights. We have lost far too many rights already!

Robert Feliszak - March 18, 2016

No wait until the next president takes office.

Bonnie Thomas - March 18, 2016

I’m against it because Garland is for Gun Control and for the EPA regulations that they make., and for Environmental. Protection!, Not the people!

Martin Gomez - March 18, 2016

The Senate should NOT confirm anti-second Amendment left-authoritarian judge Garland. Why don’t you mention to readers the petitions out there demanding that the Senate hold off until after the election or start your own?

Karen Doornbos - March 18, 2016

Absolutely NOT. WE the People should have a say as to how they want the country to go, not the lame duck president.

Mary Voth - March 18, 2016

The new justice selection should wait for the newly elected president as it has historically.

Charlotte Whitmire - March 18, 2016

Don’t you (establishment Republicrats) dare let that happen. I will be done with
you forever.

Don L. Robbins - March 18, 2016

No Justice should be elected to the Supreme Court until we have our say and the new President is elected.

Peter Lorin - March 18, 2016

Yes, Ed Meese is obviously absolutely correct on every point, just as Joe Biden argued back in 1992!
The choice of Judge Scalia’s successor must not be decided until 2017! End of discussion!

Paul Roberts - March 18, 2016

Obama should not be allowed to appoint the vacant justice to the Supreme Court.

James A. Akers - March 18, 2016

No way!! The Left will stop at noting to get their way!! Judge passing was it a planned thing?

Norma Lee Graham - March 18, 2016

Under no circumstance should President Obama be allowed to choose the next Supreme Court judge. I hope the Republicans don’t cave again!

Lukas Riapos - March 18, 2016

absolutely not allowed Obama to put an other liberal to the supreme Court!!! As they say his vice president and as written This president has done more than enough for the time he was President!!

Bill Coates - March 18, 2016

Absolutely do not confirm. Not one of Obama’s policies or actions has been of benefit to America; his Marxist, anti-colonialist background has been the foundation of his presidency. It has been a media triumph and a serious blot on the concept of a representative republic. Sadly, our government does indeed reflect the moral and intellectual failings of the citizenry.

S. Lucifer - March 18, 2016

Yes, the Senate should act to advise and consent on the nomination of Merrick Garland. Senator McConnell and the Heritage Foundation are acting on politics and not in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. Like it or not the choice of the people was made in 2012. It is wrong not to move on with confirmation.

Charles K L Jordan - March 18, 2016

no the Americcan people should have te say on the next Supremw Curt Justice.

Dan Oswald - March 18, 2016

There should be absolutely no action taken by the Senate on any judicial nominee put forth by the President. The people need to make this choice through the next President of the United States.

Robert Augeri - March 18, 2016

No, No Supreme Court Justice should be confirmed until after the November elections. It should be done by the incoming president. Even though this could be a risky, because Hillary Clinton could be our next president even though she should go to jail and not be given the Democrat nomination. The Republican should get behind the choice of the people which so far is Donald Trump. The Republican Party has failed the American people miserably to date, with the Trillion and a half budget giving Obama everything.

Joseph Kewmpf - March 18, 2016

Amen, brothers! When a Republican president wants to appoint a lame-duck supreme court justice, the Dems/liberals get all up in arms! But when Conservatives and Republicans don’t want an appointment made till the new Pres. is voted in, The Dems and Liberals scream bloody murder!!! Think there might be just a bit of political hypocracy at work here???

Domingo - March 18, 2016

I think that Obama has no right to appoint a judge since he came against bush and the next president elected the judge Obama should wait his constitution right is to take care of this country not illegals

Virginia Musick - March 18, 2016

The president as usual is overstepping his rights.

Ellen Colopy - March 18, 2016

I do not believe it is correct for O’Bama to be so disrespectful to the people’s will. In so many ways, his behavior has shown contempt for America and Americans! His tenure has been a travesty for us.

Denise Clingenpeel - March 18, 2016

In no way should it be decided before the next election. No matter who is elected.

Nan Merrick - March 18, 2016

The Republicans need to hold FIRM on their promise to let the next president decide on the nomination. They must not cave to the Liberals!!!

Maria Hufty - March 18, 2016

NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! It should be up to a vote of the people when they vote for the new President.

James Anderson - March 18, 2016

I agree that we cannot even risk having any more liberal Supreme Court justices.

Donald Wright - March 18, 2016

As a lame duck president he should not appoint the next Supreme Court justice. The Senant is not required to to vote on anyone he may appoint. They have already stated they will not respond. In our system of checks and balances they have every right to take that stance.

R.S. - March 18, 2016

NO, the Senate should not confirm obama’s choice for the Supreme Court. He is only doing it to get his way. Like a child.

Sher King - March 18, 2016

No way….Obama has already changed this country for the worse by ignoring our Constitution.

Ron Milch - March 18, 2016

The Senate should not even have a hearing on Obama’s pick for SCOTUS until 2017.

Doris Henderson - March 18, 2016

A supreme court nominee should not be voted on and / or confirmed until after the 2016 presidential election. Let “we the people” choose, by choosing first, our next president. Thank you for your consideration in this very important decision that will affect the future of citizens in the USA. I’m praying that God’s will may be done and that people will stand up for what is true and pure and right. Start with prayer and the with obeying the 10 Commandments.

Randolph and maureen morris - March 18, 2016

All of our representatives in congress should do the right thing and leave it to the next president to nominate our next Supreme Court justice. Obama is not our king or dictator.

Tom Adams - March 18, 2016

Deny. Deny. Deny. Thank you, Mr. Needed!

Earl Hamilton - March 18, 2016

The people should determine whom the
next replacement will be.

doris - March 18, 2016

Thanks for the continued efforts and news you share on line .
Yes,I thought right after his death,that we should wait for the next president. But then wondered why we the people couldn’t have a vote on this.. Then if another president like the one in office gets elected , he might appoint someone we would not want .
I am so unhappy with how things have slowly changed. I am embarrassed by the politicians on both sides Our society is constantly degrading .How blind they are and willing to have government control wanting something for nothing. Freebies. No one wants to work.
prayer is our strength. Knowing Who wins in the end helps. The system is broken and has financially broken most seniors.The folks that see the way things are going.can’t do much more than pray and vote. Some won’t even vote any more.I do, and also am an election judge. Sorry to take your time. Thanks again I do read all your posts but never can donate.

Douglas Maxson - March 18, 2016

Only the senate should be making the decision on the next Supreme Court Justice !!! NOT THE President !!!

Earl Zarbin - March 18, 2016

My recollection is that no Republican in Congress voted for ObamScare. It took a U.S. Supreme Court justice named by a Republican president to provide the deciding vote in a 5-4 decision that corrupted the Constitution and gave the nation the unholy ObamaScare mess we have today. Similarly, it took another 5-4 vote to give us same sex alliances as marriage. This occurred because of prior corruptions of the Constitution giving special privileges to married heterosexual couples, and the lawful desire by same sex couples to be on an equal footing by having the same advantages.
The corruption of the 14th Amendment, which provides for “the equal protection of the laws,” is an atrocity that evidently will not be rectified regardless of the political make-up of the court. Existence of so-called Indian reservations is another example of denial of “the equal protection” clause.
Every “majority rule” vote by Congress that provides special privilege to or for any group (including farmers, corporations, etc.) or for any individual, demonstrates the inadequacy and futility of the Constitution. It needs revision to prevent Congress from abandoning its responsibilities by turning them over to congressionally created executive monsters such as the Federal Reserve System, the Environmental Protection Agency, etc., etc., etc.

Nancy Wainwright - March 18, 2016

NO! to Obama’s liberal pick for Supreme Court. He’s already had two picks too many

Susanne Kasee - March 18, 2016

President Obama should not choose a Supreme Court Justice.

Geraldvg - March 18, 2016

Absolutely not!

Joyce Wilcox - March 18, 2016

Absolutely not!!! If the GOP caves on this issue, as they have caved on every other issue, I am done with the GOP and will pray that somehow a third party is formed that I can affiliate with. I am pretty close to that right now, considering the shenanigans surrounding the primaries and hate against Trump and Cruz.

Gary Tarleton - March 18, 2016

It is absolutely imperative that the Senate DOES NOT confirm any appointee to the Supreme Court that is made by President Obama!!

Jo-Ann - March 18, 2016

No, no, no and NO!

Kevin Massie - March 18, 2016


Tom Waites - March 18, 2016

The fate of our nation is on the line. Our freedom is at stake. The choice may not improve after the election, but at least there is hope.

Dianna and Donald Morrow - March 18, 2016

We feel the next Supreme Court Justice selected should be made by the next President in 2017.

Robert H. Miller - March 18, 2016

I agree with Ed Meese the people should have a say in who should be the person to be be voted on for the Supreme court.

Georgia Spears - March 18, 2016

No, they should not! The only way they should consider him is after the election and Hillary or Bernie get elected as president but then we are sunk unless we manage to get a conservative congress.

Werner Keil - March 18, 2016

I think the GOP is between a rick & a hardlplace. Damned if you don’t or if you do Need I say!on’t-if Hillary gets elected you know. . .

Linda Neckar - March 18, 2016

Absolutely NO! The Senate must stand against Mr. Obama’s devastating liberal agenda that goes against the will of the majority of the American people.

The Senate was voted in to the Majority to protect the American people…it is time for them to do what they promised they would do!

Robert Thornburgh - March 18, 2016

No, No, No, Let the next president pick the judge. We do not need another left leaning judge on the bench.

annette and Larry walth - March 18, 2016

Heck, NO. Obama has done more than enough to damage our democracy

Werner Alber - March 18, 2016

we pray that congress stand strong on denying a hearing for the candidates proposed by Barack Obama

James Traffanstedt - March 18, 2016

No. The fact that he has placed Justices on the bench that can’t read a very simple Admendment and require the Federal and State governments to abide by it is harm enough.

We will recieve no better from his next choice in regards to true justice and strict Constitutionality.

Virginia - March 18, 2016

No!! I agree with Former Attorney General Ed Meese–funny how the Democrat establishment wants their “cake & eat it, too” when the shoe is on the other foot– 🙁

Charles Marsh - March 18, 2016

Not only no but HELL NO. The last two he appointed shows what he would appoint.

Adrienne Jacobson - March 18, 2016

No hearing and no vote on Obama’s nominee to replace Mr. Justice Scalia, period.

Gregory Reis - March 18, 2016

No I did not vote for you and no he should not be appointed!!!

Susan - March 18, 2016

Obama should not have a say in selecting the next Supreme Court jurist. He can, by the Constitution, put forth any name, but the Senate Judiciary Committee does not have to advise and consent at his will. Whomever is elected next as president may be even worse than obama, however. We are living in Biblical times, so must beware what we ask for as a people, as a country.

Judy - March 18, 2016

Garland should NOT be appointed to Supreme Court. It is well documented that he opposed/s the Second Amendment.

Vicki Ecker - March 18, 2016

Under Constitutional law, President Obama has the right to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court. But our Constitution also makes it plain and completely lawful for the Senate to weigh in on this choice. The document is somewhat vague about the extent of Congressional the power in affirming the president’s appointment, but the requirement of Senate “advice and consent” is clearly spelled out. Strict interpretation would suggest the president’s appointment cannot proceed without Senate approval.

Jeff Rose - March 18, 2016


Marilyn Buenning - March 18, 2016

President should by no means appoint the next Supreme Court justice. He has done enough damage during his term. We don’t need him to do anymore damage. Can’t wait until his term is ended.

Jim Stohlmann - March 18, 2016


Sherry Scoffield - March 18, 2016

Absolutely not! The people should make that decision…and and we will make it by our vote in the November election. The new president will get that privilege.

Cassandra von Braun - March 18, 2016

Of course not! Garland has been hanging around Washington for decades, hoping to be named to the SCOTUS. How many favors does he owe? What kinds of deals has he made? We the people have had enough of that. We want true, clean, untainted, brilliance like Richard Epstein or Eugene Volokh or . . . there are probably dozens of better choices!

Ann B - March 18, 2016

No under no circumstances

Kelly Benedict - March 18, 2016


Paul Burnett - March 18, 2016


Var - March 18, 2016

I believe that if the Democrats are going to ‘make up’ rules for themselves in the Senate (by way of Joe Biden), we should hold them to their own rules. But I do not believe Democrats can change the rules whenever it suits them. They can’t have it both ways, whichever way is to their advantage. What kind of ‘rule of law’ is that? What the Democrats are trying to do now sounds very much like what my children use to try to get away with at 6 or 7 years old. Wait…Do Democrats have a 6 year old mentality? That would explain a lot. Let the people choose!

Kevin Norman - March 18, 2016

No more leftist on the Supreme Court. It is too much like a legislature for perverts already.

John Cocayne - March 18, 2016

No Not ever should our anti American president have anymore to say about our nations direction

Steve - March 18, 2016


Carolyn Brunsdon - March 18, 2016

Absolutely not. President Obama has had few obstacles to his policies and appointments for over 7 years. The time to claim the rights of the people and our next chosen president is now. Enough damage; enough liberal leeway. Our Republican leaders need to keep their word and follow through for the good of our country.

Gay Dodson - March 18, 2016

President Obama should absolutely NOT be allowed to choose the next Supreme Court nominee!!!??????

Thomas Cassidy - March 18, 2016

NO!! Wait till the American people speak.

Joseph Link - March 18, 2016

Absolutely not! The Senate has the responsibility to advise and consent and they have every right to refrain from holding hearings until the November election is decided.

Stephen Lee - March 18, 2016

No, NO, No, Obama should not ruin the SCOTUS with another liberal that will Legislate from the Bench! We are being destroyed by Obama already! The Republicans must not cave in to any of this!

Donald Streinz - March 18, 2016

No appointment should be considered by the Senate until the next president is in office.

Michael Holter - March 18, 2016

I do not believe the vacancy on the supreme court should be filled by pres. Obama, wait until after the elections and let the people decide who will fill the current vacancy.

Verva Thomas - March 18, 2016

MANY should be tried for treason!

AND convicted of same!!

Dennis Math - March 18, 2016

NO. The Senate should not confirm ANY nominee that Obama puts before that body. The Court can function quite well until the next President is in office and we sure don’t want another ultra liberal that Obama will nominate come hell or high water. The Senate is in the control of the Republicans and should stand firm against any Obama appointments.

Beth Schulz - March 18, 2016

The people should decide

John Cammarato - March 18, 2016

I missed the part in the Constitution where it says the President will not nominate an individual for the Supreme Court if he has less then a year in office. The GOP Senate could hold hearings and vote no. I don’t care how many quotes you have from liberals, Conservatives are the ones who always claim liberals ignore the Constitution and we follow it. Apparently ,in Washington the Constitution no longer matter to either party,

madonna hosch - March 18, 2016

No to any appointment prior to the Nov. election.

A Burt - March 18, 2016


robert coulston - March 18, 2016

not a chance obama loves playing both sides just to get what he wants what about his fillibuster of bushes nominee ? no way to my way or the highway obama!

Michael Mulcahy - March 18, 2016

If you want your 2nd amendment to disappear.

Gary L Bell - March 18, 2016

The people must be able to choose. By the way it’s of the people for the people by the people. We must never forget. Our freedom is in the balance.

Martin Kunstmann - March 18, 2016

No. In addition, any nominee should be judged on their ability to follow the Constitution and not try to change its intent. Changes should only come about through the amendment process.

M with earle - March 18, 2016

No it should wait until next term presidential term. However , lifetime appointments should be discontinued & court system allowed to interpret existing law, not bend to their view. Maybe a 6 year term extended by reappointment max 2 times for 18 years max. No appointments should be lifetime! They are wielding too much power. Back to balance of 3 branches !!!!

Gary L Bell - March 18, 2016

As a veteran of the Vietnam war I have seen my freedoms dwindel away. I’m tried of the Washington establishment trying to tell me how to think. I stand for the Constitution I swore to defend and protect from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.!!!!

Angelique Fehr - March 18, 2016

Absolutely not. The next president should have that option.

William S. - March 18, 2016

Absolutely Not ! This is Just Obummer’s Radical Left, Liberal Agenda, as usual, If the Senate does not refuse this confirmation they will be giving away the rights of the People to Whims of the Liberal Left and Not Standing up for the Constitutional Rights of the People who put them in office!

Lyle Ellis - March 18, 2016

Obama has had his say on the court appointees that were rightfully his. The people are going to soon elect the person that rightfully has the job and duty to appoint the next Justice.

James Reznik - March 18, 2016

The Senate SHOULD NOT confirm President Obama’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland at all costs. Let the people and new President do the appointee and confermation.

Wes Evans - March 18, 2016

NO Garland is a left of center supporter of Liberal Progressive policy. He has a history of supporting Federal Government Bureaucracy at the expense of the rights of individual citizen rights and will tilt the court to the left.

David Dolcater - March 18, 2016

Not only no, but HELL no!

Gerald lakritz - March 18, 2016

Don’t let Obama destroy this wonderful country don’t let him place another left left wing liberal on the court hopefully Clinton will soon be under lndictment before the election than l know law and order will prevail Clinton is awash in good people blood please do every thing you can to help save our great country God bless

Daniel Read - March 18, 2016

The Senate must not confirm any Obama nominee – period.

Pat C - March 18, 2016

I’m afraid this is the last straw for me re the Republicans. I was born into a Republican family, have been a Republican all my life, and now at 74 yrs. of age, I’ve had it. I try to look at both sides of issues and stay open, but the party’s determination to block a fair hearing of a new Supreme Justice….a critical part of our democracy….puts partiality above our democracy. I’m ready to leave the Republican party and become in independent.

Jerry Howard - March 18, 2016

No conformation untill after election.

Cathy Osborn - March 18, 2016

The Senate should not confirm Merrick Garland.

Jerry Taylor - March 18, 2016

If McConnell and republican senate do not cowl to O’bama as they usually do we will not have a justice appointed by O’bama

jackie schon - March 18, 2016

yes it should weight until the elections are over.

Kay Seabough - March 18, 2016


Elizabeth Wallace - March 18, 2016

The Senate absolutely should not even vote on him. He would definitely vote with the liberals. The only way they should vote for him would be if Hillary, Heaven forbid, should win in November then they should confirm him as less bad than someone she would nominate.

Terry Land - March 18, 2016

No vote until the election over

James sokol - March 18, 2016

Of course he should nominate a qualified person.
He has!

If the senate chooses to advise and not consent,
that is their constitutional responsibility.

Every citizen should insist that their senator do her or his job

The GOP will pay a huge price of this doesn’t happen.

Marilyn H Markham - March 18, 2016

Absolutely not!! The Senate should remain firm that they will not hold hearings or even consider a nominee from President Obama at this time.

Robert Libby - March 18, 2016

The Constitution is explicit about what should occur. Clearly the Constitution was designed to filter the popular will of the voters and the dreaded democracy, by having a process of deliberation.

WALTER EMERY - March 18, 2016


Steven Czonstka - March 18, 2016

Just as the president has the duty to appoint, the Senate has the duty to decide whether or not to confirm. Agree with the decision to withhold a confirmation decision until after the election.

Vern Cornell - March 18, 2016

The next Judge should be appointed by the people. Determining how to do this is not simple. But do it!

Linda - March 18, 2016

No. Stand firm and do not hold hearings. Postpone, postpone, postpone.

Connie Ellis - March 18, 2016

Obama should NOT be allowed to nominate anyone for the Supreme Court vacancy when his term is about to end. And, if he does, then the Senate to block his nomination by refusing to hear it. We have enough liberal justices now (courtesy of Barrack Obama) that decide what the law is based on their liberal interpretation instead of doing what the Constitution says is right.

Karen Bartlett - March 18, 2016

Absolutely not! The appointment should wait until after the election, and hopefully will be made by Senator Ted Cruz. After all, he argued in front of the Supreme Court to protect our 2nd Amendment rights (Heller case) and won, and has the conservative values thoughtful Americans treasure.

Ned Luce - March 18, 2016

Obama is a typical politician that changes his opinion based upon want he wants rather than a core set of principles.

I do not know if his pick for SCOTUS is good or not and if Hillary gets elected the country is in deeper trouble.
I would not have the Senate vote for the SCOTUS.

Michael Scott - March 18, 2016

No, President Obama will replace Scalia with another like him. This is why America should select not Hillary or Bernie but another. There is too much at stake.

Brenda - March 18, 2016

NO, It should be done after the elections are over. Anything obama does should be STOPPED.

Howard Redmon - March 18, 2016

We must not cave on this one. Our future depends on this.

John Aukerman - March 18, 2016

I think the Judiciary Committee should give him a hearing. And then vote. Vote him down, by all means. But don’t let the Dems demagogue this.

LINUS HEMING - March 18, 2016

Accepting Barack Hussein’s nomination fer the Supreme Court would give him the power of a Dictator and there goes our Constitution and our Fredoms.

Glenda Alley - March 18, 2016

The Senate should NOT give Judge Garland a hearing. It should be left until after the November elections. If the Democrats win, they can resubmit the name.

Marilyn DeKam - March 18, 2016

No way!!!!!!!!!!!! I think Ted Cruz would make a great supeme court judge.

Charles Meade - March 18, 2016

No nomination until after next Congress is seated. As have been done in the past.

James D Paisley - March 18, 2016

NO!!! Regardless of who it is!

Jane - March 18, 2016

No they should no let the new present take care of that.

Daniel Amare - March 18, 2016

No, Absolutly not. The Senate must reject the Barck Obama’s appointe for Justice even the appointee was a conservative. The most important reason would’ve the circumstances of the death of the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia mast be investigated, may take years, before then Barack Obama’s term ends. One can argue,what are the chances of Justce Scalia’s Duden death: 1. When a conservative republican is the president in 2016, Trump? 2. Trump would have tipped the Supreme Court power from left to the right for sure. 3. Now, a renowned justice left us unexpectedly,even if a conservative justice was appointed, the power is much less for conservative’s Justice Supreme Court than it would have been let alone Obama appoint a justice who eyes on the 2nd amendment violation and end to it. 4. That indicates to make a valid cause to waite until the circumstances of Justice Scalia’s unexpected death is fully must be investigated. Just tell Obama there may have been a fowel play in the Justices death, it may take years for all we know, Obama Absolutly can not appoint a new justice any more. Obama had a chance to appoint two justices, that is more than his share, his justices so far has done damages to already to the republic being radical left justices, enough is enough. That also means Obama must be in probation not to qualify for appointing a new Justice even if his term is more than a year, his repot card on excuttive fiat made Obama the biggest flunk and a disgrace in many other issues that affected the American people negatively like never before. Like former Reagan attorney general pointed out let the people appoint the new Justice with the new President in the White House in 2017.

John Chadwick - March 18, 2016

The voters in the upcoming election should decide on the next Supreme Court Justice and definitely not Obama! Obama has the lowest puplic acceptance rating every and a large part of general puplic would like to impeach him!

David Kahn - March 18, 2016

His own Vice-President set forth what is referred to as the Biden Principle. No president during the “election season” shall nominate and expect to be approved a SCOUS judge. Not a great fan of Biden but this makes an awful lot of sense to me!

Thomas Shaffrey - March 18, 2016

NO, no, hell no !!

Peter pasquarosa - March 18, 2016

The anointed one should not pick the next scotus, sick of the Democrats changing the rules to suit their needs.

Bonnie Winslow - March 18, 2016

The Senate should not even hold hearings on a SCOTUS appointment!!! Obama had his chance in putting 2 on the court already. Why should he get a 3rd? From what I am hearing about Judge Garland, he has voted to the left on everything outside of criminal justice. This includes all social issues, etc. where the law is not just being interpreted but made and changed. This is NOT what the Supreme Court is there to do!!!

Daniel Amare - March 18, 2016

I wanted to mention I am a Trump White House supporter from CA. I intend to pursue a political office here in CA, by the virtue of Ronald Reagan saying once, “The time is NOW”

In Liberty,
Daniel Amare

Charmaine Behee - March 18, 2016

No! Period!

Joe B. Gambill - March 18, 2016

No,he should not.
As you know,the Democrats hypocrisy on
this topic is monumental.For example,take the 100+ federal appeals court nominations by the elder Bush that the Democrats did not even allow out of comittee.Then there was the rejection of Bork and the attempted
framing of Clarence Thomas.

B Wallner - March 18, 2016

Senator Barack Obama regarding Supreme Court justice appointments in January 2006.

Phil - March 18, 2016

No absolutely not!! The American people have the right to make that choice. I pray the Republicans grow a spine for once in life an reject any all offers!!

laura jessup - March 18, 2016

The Senate should not confirm President Obama’s appointee for the Supreme Court. Anyone appointed to the Supreme Court should not be there for life. This is a disgrace.

Wilbur Rankin - March 18, 2016

Yes, the Senate should confirm. Here’s why: The highest probability is either Trump or Clinton will be the next president. Both are very disliked by the Republican leadership. Better to go with the moderate available now than to be stuck with an extreme nominee by Trump or Clinton.Remember, he has already been approved by many Republicans in past hearings.

Francis - March 18, 2016

NO WAY should president Obama have any say on the next Supreme Court justice no way!!!!!

De Ette Moon - March 18, 2016

As long as we are a nation “Of the people, By the people and For the people the PEOPLE should choose. And they will choose by choosing the next president. Wait until after the election.

Virginia Osgood - March 18, 2016

No way!

Jeffrey A. Harrington - March 18, 2016

Obama has no buisness nominating or having a new Supreme Court Justice confirmed to replace Antonin Scalia.

dale clary - March 18, 2016

hell, no

Joyce Y. McNutt - March 18, 2016

It is my understanding that the
Supreme Court Judges only
translate the law, not make changes.

Dr. Paul Dunn - March 18, 2016

In no uncertain terms, Obama should not be allowed to fill this Supreme Court vacancy!
If the Republican controlled Senate caves in on this and even holds a hearing it will be the death of any support for the Rebublican party by the people.

James Owen - March 18, 2016

I’m not one known for eloquently phasing the obviously plain truth…..HELL NO !!!…. Reason # 1, He is a member of the Harvard law Review same as Obama,( just another Obama crony). Reason #2, Sept. 6th 1995 Billy Bob Clinton nominated him to D.C. Circuit. (birds of a feather)

Charlotte Keneson - March 18, 2016

The American voters have the responsibility to elect a new president in a few months. The choice of that president will carry the choice of the Supreme Court Justice from we the people. No, no, no President Obama should most definitely NOT have a nominee considered at by the Senate.

Anne Hohl - March 18, 2016

I agree that the new supreme court justice should not be selected until the new President has been elected.

William E Montgomery - March 18, 2016

NO hearings, NO votes…in fact let’s make it easier for the president to get in his golf practice and hoops workouts by telling him to totally take off the rest of his term, just pretend he is already retired, and no long has any relevancy..

David Snyder - March 18, 2016

Not NO,but, HELL No !!!

Michael D. Marley - March 18, 2016

Obama has done enough damage to this country. Despite the fact that he has nominated an individual for the Supreme Court, the Senate controls “when” the hearings should/will proceed. Hopefully, they will make the right decision.

Lois E Pera - March 18, 2016

Obama should NOT, ever, ever, NOT EVER get to appoint another judge.

Rayford Kimble - March 18, 2016

Republicans absolutely must stand their ground and not give in to Obama (for a change). No President in the last year of his term should be allowed to appoint a supreme court judge. This would be entirely too dangerous and would subject the American people to hardships for decades to come. Please do not cave in to this President on this issue.

Beverly Wood - March 18, 2016

No, Obama should have No say in who is the next appointee to the Supreme Court. It should be up to the people to make this selection or to the next President.

Steve - March 18, 2016

No! The newly elected President and Senate rightly have the responsibility.

Norman White - March 18, 2016

No, not unless people want another ten to twenty years of Obama-like policies and decisions. The US Senate has the prerogative to approve the nominated judge–end of story. The people’s elected representatives decide not Obama.

Vickie - March 18, 2016

Obama should not be allowed to choose the next Justice!

Kimberly Melton - March 18, 2016

No nominee for the Supreme Court should be considered until a new President takes office next January. I find it strange that the Democrats have drastically changed their beliefs on this subject since it’s their President holding office. They are such hypocrites. Thank you for the good work you do at the Heritage Foundation!

john - March 18, 2016

This SCOTUS should be decided of and by the American people!!! end of story!! BHO……shut yur pie hole and go away!!!!!

Dan foutch - March 18, 2016

We need to wait. Let the election play out.

Mabel Real - March 18, 2016

I do not trust Obama on deciding who should be our next Supreme Court Justice. Obama has done so much damage to this country!!! This decision should be for our next president.

William Koontz - March 18, 2016

Absolutely not!!

Keith - March 18, 2016

Under no circumstances should President Obama be permitted by the Senate to have his way and have the next supreme court judge confirmed. This decision should be left up to the people as they vote for the next president.

Marcos McGovern - March 18, 2016

I think the Senate should listen to the applicant and vote him down. Unfortunately, we have put poor candidates in the Senate and would likely cave and do what ever Obama wants.

Vasily - March 18, 2016

Dear Jim DeMint,

. The balance of powers internally biased to the President authority, which may using it for decisions catastrophic for liberty and democracy but lucrative for the brain washing majority. For this reason, without any doubt, I support blocking the current nominee to the Supreme Court. If Hilary or Sanders or Trump will come to the presidential power, the liberal Court will not stop anti-constitutional decisions because they will be executed by a skillful demagogue under masks of progress and benefits for “hard working people”.

dick bedard - March 18, 2016

we have seen obamas goals==NOW FOLLOW THE BIDEN RULE ####

Susan Philipp - March 18, 2016

No, President Obama has done enough damage to this nation. Let’s not allow him to exercise any more power over the Supreme Court. Checks and balances between the 3 branches of government are so bad that I doubt it can be fixed. He will do irreparable damage to my rights and my beliefs.

Emily Lewis - March 18, 2016

The Senate should absolutely NOT even consider any candidate that Obama names!

Mike - March 18, 2016

Nothing should be done towards the selection of a Supreme Court Justice until new President in place. Nothing should be allowed by Obama period!

Joyce Barnhart - March 18, 2016

We the people need to pick a new president, that president should pick the judge. Obama has made a MESS of almost everything, he certainly shouldn’t pick a new judge!!

Anne Cocke - March 18, 2016

Absolutely NOT.

Teri - March 18, 2016

No way!

Robert J Earl - March 18, 2016

Per the constitution POTUS can nominate whoever he wants to be a SCOTUS justice and the senate can confirm or deny that nomination. Recent polls show about two thirds of our citizens think the USA is headed in the wrong direction. Approval of BHO’s lifetime nomination will assure that America stays on that wrong track for at least another generation. BHO and the Dems work together to win. The unprincipled majority Republican milquetoast senate acts individually to allow themselves to feel compassionate and politically correct. When pressured these (R) senators will fold, surrender, and cave. Maybe we should let them destroy the Republican party and try to start over.

Sherri Carpenter - March 18, 2016

No Obama, I refuse to address him as President; he has done nothing to deserve thst type of respect. He has no authority to make any appointments and the Senate MUST not confirm it.

Marilyn Hodgell - March 18, 2016

No Judicial appointees should be made by out going president.

Charles B Towner - March 18, 2016

I would prefer taking a chance with the President’ s choice than any of the current possible next President !!!

EvertPMcdonald - March 18, 2016


Phillip Gerard - March 18, 2016

I have two thoughts that concern me,
First, It seems that the democrats are talking out of both sides of their mouths the way the turned down Bush’s conservative nominees some years back and now using the media to ramrod in his liberal nominees.

Second, with many of the other issues of the Obama administration swept under the rug by the media it seems the democrats don’t mind going far beyond Nixon for political gain, so one of my questions is how did justice Scalia die anyway? Was an autopsy performed?

Daryl A Spilde - March 18, 2016

No, he should not be confirmed, but given a hearing,then voted down.Repeat until Obama comes up with a more moderate choice. It is a big mistake to possibly give H Clinton the chance to make this appointment OR have a Democratic Senate rubber stamp whoever she would choose!!

Alan Harris - March 18, 2016

The only circumstance in which confirmation would be reasonable is if Mrs. Clinton wins the November election. This would prevent her from nominating someone worse.

w busse - March 18, 2016

I agree with Vice President Joe Biden and the position he took as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1992. The Supreme Court should not take the direction of the liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican, but stay on the straight and narrow course and not discharge its duties based on political correctness or situation ethics.

Bob Meara - March 18, 2016

I don’t know if it is best for the Senate to hold hearings, but I do know this: don’t confirm an Obama appointee!!!!!

Diane Kuhnly - March 18, 2016

Absolutely not the choice will be made by the new President and the citizens of the USA.

Zane and Pat Gideon - March 18, 2016

No the republicans should not even have a hearing. Both parties need to read the Constitution and follow it and the republicans should STOP CAVING to the dems.

Michael Shotwell - March 18, 2016

Did not the Founding Fathers & our forefathers fight a war against King George III over similiar such tyranny? Has our own government forgotten the foundation on which this country was built? Shall King Obama become a greater thief of liberty and a more wicked tyrant than King George III? May the Lord forbid and may the Lord have mercy upon America!

Gerald Hyatt - March 18, 2016

NO!!!!! Invoke the Biden rule. No nomination during a presidential election year!!

Jerry ivy - March 18, 2016

Absolutely, positively not!

Shane Rossow - March 18, 2016

Congress should stand strongly against any appointments this president puts up for Supreme Court. His two recent appointments helped force the abomination , so called gay marriage on us. Even though judges are not supposed to legislate. Also Obama care was rewritten and forced on us. Unless we no longer value our constitution and the freedoms, our forefathers fought and died for, let the next president fill the vaccancy. Lord willing it is someone who actually wants to defend and uphold our constitution instead of trying to tear it apart. May God continue to bless this great nation !

CeDenia Thomas - March 18, 2016

No! whoever is elected president should appoint.

Brenda - March 18, 2016

Obama should not choose the Supreme Court Justice to replace Justice Scalia. Not with Merrick or anyone else. Mr. Meese’s arguments are better than anything I could put forth. The bottom line is since the Court has been defined by its liberal justices as an activist entity seeing “penumbras of emanations” in the Constitution, loosely interpreting the Constitution to expand government control of the people rather than to limit it, it is imperative that the new president be allowed to choose the new justice. If the president is liberal then the left gets what it wants anyway. If, however, the new president is conservative (translate that
devoted to conserving the word and historicity of the Constitution) and sees the role of the Court as interpreting legislation and executive order in the light of the Constitution – not interpreting the Constitution, then the millions of Americans who still believe that America is exceptional because of the Constitution and because of the checks its put of our representative government, will have a chance to see our many eroded freedoms restored and our heritage of God first, people second, government… somewhere down the line restored.

Anne McDade Barrett - March 18, 2016

Absolutely not! The current open position on the Supreme Court should be filed by the President elected in November 2016.

Gaye Wright - March 18, 2016

No way!! The Congress should grow some guts and vote no!!!

Janice Brown - March 18, 2016

I believe that the senate should take a long time in checking this guy out. They could go back several years, just like the democrats did for some of the other nominations earlier.

Linda Stuteville - March 18, 2016

absolutely not. He has done enough damage

Nick ingrassi - March 18, 2016

No I do not feel the senate should allow Obama nomination to the Supreme Court and let the next president make the appointment. Obama nomination is anti 2nd amendment and has already had his dicission over turned on personal hub ownership in a law abiding citizens home.
So block Obama appointment.

S Larson - March 18, 2016

No new Supreme Court Judge by a lame duck president.

Nick ingrassi - March 18, 2016

No do not allow president Obama nomination to the Supreme Court and let the people decide with the next president. We don’t want a liberal judge in the bench that will off set the balance of justice.

Peggy - March 18, 2016

No, never, absolutely not. No more cave ins to this President.

JUDITH RUNION - March 18, 2016


Wayne Rollis - March 18, 2016

Obama has caused enough problems and trouble for the people now we sure don’t need another Gun Banner in the supreum

Thank You
Wayne R. Rollis
[email protected]

Lloyd Sullivan - March 18, 2016

Obama should not appoint a supreme court justice.

Louis Grasso - March 18, 2016

Thie Senate must not bring up Obama’s Supreme Court nominee for hearings and certainly not for a confirmation vote. The constitution does not require the Senate to bring up a Supreme Court nominee for a vote. Majority Leader McConnell must hold firm on his promise not to bring up any Obama nominees and leave it to the next President to nominate one.

Paul A. Clark - March 18, 2016

I agree with Ed Meese. Don’t vote on repacing the judge until after the election.

Norman Lankow - March 18, 2016


William Perkins - March 18, 2016

I’m going to go with the smart decision that Biden made in 1992. By now he likely has forgotten what he said, I haven’t!

Brenda Godfrey - March 18, 2016

Absolutely Not!!! Enough damage has been done by Obama and the Liberals he has put in place. We need someone who
stands by the Constitution to be the next
Supreme Court Nominee.

Ronald jones - March 18, 2016

No. This seat should be filled by the next president.

donna swanson - March 18, 2016

NO the Senate should NOT confirm Judge Garland to the supreme court

Helen - March 18, 2016

We should not allow President’s pick to become a member of the Supreme Court.
We need to have a better balance of judges. We, Constitution Conservatives, need someone who shares our values,who will make decisions based on the laws in our Constitution.

Kim Ewing - March 18, 2016

There must be zero new/replacement supreme court justices until after the NEW 2017 president has taken over the White House, period!
Even Joe Biden (and the liberal democrats) adamantly demanded no new justices in 1992 during Bush’s last year in office!

Janice Foxworth - March 18, 2016

Republicans, please stand firm as you promised before we elected you, that you would stand up to Obama, by not
allowing him to continue to ignore we
citizens, and give into his demands. Our country is in serious jeopardy to keep allowing him to get away with this.

Christine Paul - March 18, 2016

Obama should not have any appointee to the Supreme Court appointment confirmed in his last less than year term.
He should not have been allowed to appoint the new Secretary of Education, another Liberal and Common core advocate, and under no circumstances should the House and Senate have approved this budget! They must under the influence of a mind numbing drug!

Leonard Poe - March 18, 2016

Obama absolutely must NOT be allowed to load the Supreme Court with his leftists allies and destroy what so many have given their lives to obtain for us; FREEDOM like the world has never know before!
Lord help us!

Ted Beatty - March 18, 2016

If Garland is confirmed, the last mainstay of the Constitution – the 2nd Amendment – will be toast. DC vs Heller will be reversed and Obama will proceed to confiscate all firearms in our hands.

Josefa elliott - March 19, 2016

Absolutely. No.

Peggy Pipes - March 19, 2016

I do not think President Obama should appoint the vacancy of the supreme court judge. He has done enough damage to American in his almost 8 years as President. That is why we put Republicans in control in the last 2 elections but they have done nothing to stop Obama.

Vicki - March 19, 2016

Of course, not.

Doris Edland - March 19, 2016

No, our president does not have the right to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice.
Only the next president and the people should make that choice.

William Mills - March 19, 2016


Linda findlay - March 19, 2016

The Supreme Court Justice should be nominated by the next President, not Obama, he’s out, he has divided this country like no other. He is not King.

Daniel Leudanski - March 19, 2016

No! But WHY was there no autopsy done on justice Scalia’s death? WHY is there no outcry about this from the “Right”? This is not acceptable! Yes I am claiming foul play by the “Liberal Left”!!!

Dona Edgmon - March 19, 2016

Obama has done enough damage to this country. He should not appoint another justice.

Phil Walker MD - March 19, 2016


Tony Namlick - March 19, 2016

No. Let the New President Nominate Supreme Court Judge Scalia’s Replacement. The Great Judge Scalia’s replacement should be decided by We the People on Tuesday November 8, 2016 when we vote for a new President (Republican, Democrat, Independent or Socialist/Communist). This new President, who will be inaugurated January 2017, will replace the lawless dictator who has been residing in the People’s White House for the last eight years.

Nelson Thomas - March 19, 2016

YES he should and the senate too. TO not do so is obstruction of justice and the system. A do nothing congress has opened the door for a Nazi looking lead Republican candidate and is helping split this country, creating a very disfunctional Republican party and insuring a Democratic win in the fall. To not vote for this excellent nominee (for Americans not just Democrats or Republicans he is an even choice) Time to grow up and play team ball, cut the rhetoric in the USA of not my way or the highway! Let’s grow up folks.

Earl - March 19, 2016

The people need to decide the next s c j

Patii - March 19, 2016

NO…. No Judge appointment by Obama. It needs and should be appointed by the NEW President (who ever that maybe) elected in the 2016 Election (voted in by the American people). Biden pressed his point about a NEW Demo. President picks the Judge a few years back. And that was what happened. Why now should it be any different… except the Democrat Party feels they are special and make NO exception to any rules other than the ones that enrich their causes. Funny how things flip flop when the worm turns !

Andy Bouse - March 19, 2016

The Honorable members of the Senate should uphold their sworn oath to defend this Country and Our Constitution by refusing to hold hearings on ANY Obama appointees at Any judicial Post. This President, as no other, has sought the dissolution of our National heritage and identity. Our Nation’s heritage is at stake: the Senate should act with Courage to thwart any judicial appointees during the remainder of President Obama’s term. The Senate should no longer yield their constitutional authority as they did with allowing the flawed nuclear deal which Iran has already broken. The Senate Republicans should not allow hearings to be held for the next Supreme Court nominee, or any others! The Senate does not remember the awful treatment Republican Presidents and their Supreme Court Nominees have faced….or do you choose to forget???!

Carl - March 19, 2016

This will be left up to the people and the new president that we the people vote in to office, not to Obamas personal agenda , he should have been thrown out of office a long time ago, but the very rich want there pawn in for their new world order plans!!! Wake Up America we can stop this get out and VOTE!!!

Brain Stephenson - March 19, 2016

In no way should the current President be allowed to pick the next Supreme Court Justice. I just hope and pray the Senate doesn’t capitulate to the ever increasing pressure from the left. God help U.S. if they do.

Herman McBride - March 19, 2016

No, Obama should not appoint judge
Merrick Garland.

Lula Broome - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not! This president has done enough damage to our country. Please stand firm and do not allow a vote for the Supreme Court until AFTER the election! I hope that you will stand firm on what you have said you will do and that is to not vote for the Supreme Court nominee before the election!!!! The people are going to hold you at your word!

Normadine Kirkpatrick - March 19, 2016

Please wait until after the election and let our votes count! It is “we the people” who will live under the decisions of this court. The term of our current president is almost over and he does not need to decide future decisions that will be made! Let us feel like we have a choice, too!

Robert A. Holmes - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not! America as we know it would be in grave danger, and it would go on for many years to come. I’m afraid of losing our culture, our rights and liberties. I love America! I pray that the Republicans hold their ground and not allow a devastating appointment to the Supreme Court! Now we must win the presidential election, even more so.

Anne Lopez-Gallego - March 19, 2016

NO Supreme Court appt. under Obama. This is the rightful duty of the NEXT president. Also there is no such thing as a moderate liberal = socialist!

Mary O’Gorman - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not! ! He’s a two faced liar! !

Patrick Farris - March 19, 2016

The matter of Supreme Court nomination should wait until the new president is inaugurated. Each presidential candidate should have a list of three to five persons that they put worth as possible nominees to allow the voters to decide what manner of judge that the candidates propose.
-Patrick Farris

Michael Phillips - March 19, 2016

Yes, the American people rather than a lame duck president of such short duration should make the decision on the next Supreme Court nominee and member.

James Moses - March 19, 2016

No he is to far left and he want’s to take our guns

Tom O’Grady - March 19, 2016

For once, McConnell has taken the right road in refusing to begin consideration of the nomination. If he has the backbone to hold fast, the people will have their chance to decide.

S Petty - March 19, 2016

Obama cannot select another Supreme Court Justice.

chuck williams - March 19, 2016

NO!! He was told no and no means no.
Why do they keep giving this spoiled brat everything he wants?

Gordon McRostie - March 19, 2016

No, I don’t Obama’s motive in appointing Judge Garland. Too risky for Conservatives’ purposes.

Ronald Mabe - March 19, 2016

I stand with the Senate decision to let the new President chose the Supreme Court new justice.

jim e schroeder - March 19, 2016

No more nominees from lame duck Obama.

Richard - March 19, 2016

Absolutely NOT

Jim Wierck - March 19, 2016

The Senate should NOT confirm President Obama’s appointee to the Supreme Court. Having a majority of liberal Justices on the Supreme Court would cause more damage to our Constitution than the country could handle. It would cause the demise of our nation as we know it. Everyone knows that pure liberalism does not work, anywhere.

Christopher W Headley - March 19, 2016

Trump for president. Scalia believe for SCOTUS

Elizabeth Whitehouse - March 19, 2016

Since when did the people have a say in the appointment of Supreme Court Justices? The President nominates and the Senate approves – or not.

John Froning - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not !!

Donald Hammers - March 19, 2016

After watching President Obama’s activities and Executive Orders for the last seven years, I have learned this much. If Obama wants it, whatever it is, it is bad for the country and it is bad for me. No, do not vet any Supreme Court judge that Obama wants, period!

Judith Rae - March 19, 2016

I think out of respect for the Justice, they should at least give him an interview. I do understand why they say they won’t even consider of interview; two years ago I watched our MN House and Senate gatherings and saw how the Democrats would not even consider any suggestions from the Republicans, even though they had good/excellent ideas. I guess they are getting back some of their behaviors; too bad the liberals seem to get away with it, but not the conservatives, they get discredited for it. Either way, it is childish behavior; power play; not working for the people.

Sara - March 19, 2016

President Obama does not need to elect or put into place our next Judge Supreme Judge

Martha Desiato - March 19, 2016

President Obama seems to be in a real hurry to place a liberal judge in place of the late Antonin Scalia. Judge Scalia was one of a kind and difficult to replace. I do not want Obama to do this.

Ruth - March 19, 2016

No he should not be able to do this and ruin our country for us and generations to come, everything he does under minds our country and our values. He has done enough damage and he needs to be stopped making these bad decisions to ruin our great United states.

James Marak - March 19, 2016

The senate should not confirm President Obama’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland or any other appointee of President Obama’s.

L pash - March 19, 2016

No, Supreme Court nomination. I agree with Ed Meese. Obama has too much reign under the nose of this Republican Congress. We are so disappointed with
The Republican Party as we watch them also hand over this Presidency to a career
Criminal. I hope Heritage can STOP all
This political destruction.

Buck Youngblood - March 19, 2016

Senate should defer – if Hillary wins, rush approval of Garland through, holding noses!

Marilou Springborn - March 19, 2016

actually, I thought Obama appointed a well qualified person – if Hillary wins it may be worse. Only God knows who the next president will be but I have mixed emotions about this whole thing.

Gale Waggoner - March 19, 2016

Ed Meese is absolutely right. If we don’t get it right this election cycle, I fear that our Republic will be lost.

L A Humphreys - March 19, 2016

Congress needs to hold the course and block confrmation of an Obama nominee for the Supreme Court!

Ronda - March 19, 2016

NO! President Obama is not a king! He seems to be twisting and outright ignoring our rights, laws and the constitution in general. What has happened to “freedom” and “choice”?
As long as our beliefs are-not physical or verbally hurting anyone else, we should be given the same freedoms and choices (speaking, praying, loving, protecting, teaching… And VOTING!) as any other person especially foreigners. I wonder what the president, Mrs. Clinton and those who act as these, would do or say if I came into their house, bribed or threatened their household then dictated what he/she was allowed to do or say or even where. That is what they have done and now they seem to be trying to even remove the door to our tiny room where we might have a tad of freedom (Supreme Court Judge).

Liz - March 19, 2016

The Senate should stand firm against making any move to confirm a new Supreme Court Judge until after the election. Any other move is a move against The People.

R Windatt - March 19, 2016

No but they should go through the process and vote. Otherwise they look like childish asses and play into Democrats hands.

Lillie Osborne - March 19, 2016

We the people of this nation need to make our voices heard! The present President should not nominate a new Supreme Court Justice. This is a major decision that will impact our laws long after he is out of office. With the Presidential election less than 10 months away, the people of this nation need to take a stand by voting for a President that will make clear decisions that reflect the views of the “majority” he was elected by.

Betty S. Taylor - March 19, 2016

Obama should NOT have the right to selecting this man (nor anyone else) at this time. Perhaps a woman would be a positive addition for this selection.

Laurel Higgins - March 19, 2016

We should go by the Biden rule. The next president chooses the candidate for Supreme Court.

Mr. Gary Wagner - March 19, 2016

Obama should be exiled from the United States. We the people should elect our next president and he should appoint the next Supreme court judge.

Dale Ward - March 19, 2016

No. The next POTUS will make the nomination and God help us if it’s clinton

Betty Haimbaugh - March 19, 2016

I do hope that the GOP will not roll over and play dead AGAIN! If they don’t stand firm on this and represent the people who sent them to DC, they should all be recalled!
We need another Scalia and frankly, I am not certain he died naturally! We need someone who will uphold the constitution and the law of the land.

Rubine McCullough - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not. This should be the next President’s choice. President Obama is going out of office and should have no say in choosing the replacement for Scalia.
Our country cannot survive with another liberal, unconstitutional judge.

Elisabeth Culp - March 19, 2016

The Senate Republicans must stand firm against the President’s pressure. This is a test of their resolve to hold fast to their conviction!

velma steele - March 19, 2016

Merrick Garland should not be approved by the Senate to replace Justice Scalia because he’s a liberal Justice that will continue Obama’s progressive agenda in the Supreme Court. Democracy must take its course and the American people voice be heard. We need a conservative Justice as Justice Scalia with a principled background of the rule of law to the constitution who will rein in on executive power overreach of the President and also not give in to pressure from liberal
colleagues .A conservative Justice should be appointed to have a conservative majority on the High Court.

David Howell - March 19, 2016

No. Absolutely not. They need to stand firm and wait until the next president is elected. And hopefully not a Democrat.

Sallie Wood - March 19, 2016

Next President Should elect the Supreme Court nomiminee. Should also let voters vote too!!

Jane Williams - March 19, 2016


Neta Erickson - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not! If the Republicans cave on this we may never recover as a free nation.

Norman Evans - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not! The choice of the next Supreme Court Justice should be made by the candidate that “we the people” elect this coming November! Obama & his band of merry hooligans have already done too much damage to America! I pray that the damage they have done can be reversed!

MaryLee Hornberger - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not! We need a conservative and impartial judge who follows the constitution and considers the mind and will of the people.

Mary Craddock - March 19, 2016

No, Merrick Garland should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. He would add a further leaning to the left. We need to wait til after the election and the elect a Justice, hopefully a conservative.

HANK MATE - March 19, 2016

I can’t blame him for trying but the country certainly will be a better place if he doesn’t succeed.

Marlys Unrau - March 19, 2016

The people should have a say..

Valerie Hair - March 19, 2016

No, the Senate should NOT confirm Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court. The Senate shouldn’t even have hearings on Obama’s choice. I feel the Senate should wait.

Karen Gardner - March 19, 2016

I agree that the next president should chose our next justice. It shouldn’t be done in the last year of a presidency, particularly when these are lifetime appointments. Should ‘the shoe be on the other foot’ and we had a Republican president wanting to do the same thing as Obama, would we feel the same? I don’t know the history of appointing justices to a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court, but maybe we should consider a term limit for them.
As far as Garland is concerned, he should at least be extended the courtesy of meeting with the Senators. Who knows? If a Democrat wins the White House, he may be the chosen one, or we could end up with someone even more liberal. Personally, he is disqualified in my book because of his liberal leanings on the 2nd Amendment, but then again, most liberals feel as he does about gun rights. Otherwise, he seems to be more than qualified for the job.

Alan Burbank - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not! Obama forces his will upon everyone and everything about him! He must not be allowed to place a Justice! It must be done by the next honestly elected President and that person must represent the will and Values this nation was founded upon!of the people

Herbert G. Branch - March 19, 2016

Judge Merrick Garland seems to be a very decent person. However, his training in law was unduly influenced by liberal concepts of collective ideology. Such is the material that has produced public emphases upon “collective rights” having president over individual rights. Judge Garland is on the record as viewing the Second Amendment through that political filter, which ties that right only to service in a militia (a public entity), and therefore not exclusive to any individual for the purpose of self-defense or for sport.

In that context, liberal perceptions always favor the “collective good” over the rights of any individual. This is, in effect, an anti-Foundational position, which destroys the goals and purposes of the Founders of our Republic. If the individual has no right to self-defense by any practical means, then he is disabled from continuing any pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. The rights expressed in the Declaration become over time impossible to achieve, because the individual would be stripped of his right to self-defense in a life-threatening event.

No one can pursue the American dream if his or her life is cut short by a criminal act for which there is no legal means at hand to immediately prevent such consequence.

Judge Garland, as well as a majority of law students at Ivy League schools, was taught to ignore or disregard the records of the Federalist Papers wherein were explained in detail the complete reasoning behind each argument and each component of proposed sections of the Constitution, as our Constitution was being constructed by the Framers. Such ignorance has led US to the place where modern speculative reinterpretation of historical facts has replaced real knowledge of those facts. Hence, the current American dilemma of legal rejection of everything the Founders were seeking to achieve.

Judge Garland is unequipped to defend what he doesn’t understand. The same is true for Justices Ginsburg, Sotomeyor, Kagan, Breyer, and even Kennedy at times. Scalia, whom we just lost, was the most scrupulous of observers of “oringinal intent.” We need another justice of Scalia’s caliber more than any other at this time.

jerry lowry - March 19, 2016

No the senate should not appoint the judge. the people should vote on the judge when they vote for the president. also the judge should not be a lifer and the other judges should be taken out of office before they die, which some of them look like they are already doing.

Frederick Kadyk - March 19, 2016

No one should be considered for appointment to the supreme court without the recommendation of the NEXT President of the United States. That means NO Mr. Obama!

Paul A Briggs - March 19, 2016

To say that the President should not be allowed to…; flies in the face of the Constitution. It allows him to nominate and that nomination is brought before the Senate for confirmation hearings. Confirmation or denial is the Senate’s responsibility. For anyone to infer that a branch of government ought not be allowed to act in accord with the Constitution is absurd. My opinion is that the Senate should vote him down that is how they make the will of the people known, not delay the hearing, that just looks like lawyer stuff and that is what America is tired of seeing and hearing from Washington. Do the hearing and then say No. move on to business at hand. Keep saying No until the next President but then it might just be Hillary and then what will they do?

Herbert G. Branch - March 19, 2016

Apology. In my prior posting I mis-spelled the word “precident” in the first paragraph. It appears as “president,” which is wrong. Sorry for the typo.

Steve Menke - March 19, 2016

Let the citizens decide,

David Lopez - March 19, 2016

The Senate should stay fast on keeping the nomination off until after the new president is elected. Obama has done enough damage to date there is no sense in letting him do more.

Pam Weber - March 19, 2016

Of course the Senate should not vote or confirm any nomination from a lame duck president. Mr. Meese is correct. The American people need to decide on this! And the pressure from the left should be ignored– it is hypocritical.

Sarah Smila - March 19, 2016

Justice Scalia’s replacement should be left to the next President. I fear what is going to happen to this Country if another liberal is placed on the Supreme Court. I am almost 80 years old and have watched
the decline of this County for the last
eight years.

Cameron B .Ashe - March 19, 2016


Donald Thorne - March 19, 2016

He can appoint a conservative Judge simaler to Justice Sciala.

Rosemary Fourson - March 19, 2016

NO!!! We must wait to see who the next president is and pray to God that it is a republican.

Alva Pilgreen - March 19, 2016

We don’t need more liberal , socialist , gun grabbers in D.C. We need people who SUPPORT the Constitution . It is The Bill Of RIGHTS , not maybes .

Judi Faulkner - March 19, 2016

No no no. Let our new President have the honor as it should be. I do pray that the establishment let us “we the people” and make sure legal american citizens only can vote and elect our next president. THIS IS THE WAY OUR COUNTRY USED TO BE. WE NEED TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK NOW!!

JOHN CHAPMAN - March 19, 2016

Should not confirm any Obama appointee to the Supreme Court from now to his departure for White House.

Larry Andrews - March 19, 2016

Democrats blocked Bush’s appointment of Judges for 18 months and kept congress open over Christmas so Bush could not appoint Judges.

Stacy pancoast - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not

Robert S. Licata - March 19, 2016

Ed Meese is absolutely correct! Obama will try unceasingly till his term is over to further damage our economy, our country and to divide Americans into unrecognizable pieces of “junk” before leaving office. He has been totally committed to this endeavor since his first day in office. Why he is popular with anyone is beyond belief! His last day in office can not come too soon, the American left has been euthanized by his constant stream of political bull shit. It is past time to come back to reality.

Gaylan Abood - March 19, 2016

The Senate should not confirm President Obama’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. The new president should select the next Supreme Court Justice.

Sheila Wimberly - March 19, 2016

No, the Senate should not confirm Judge Merrick Garland’s appointment to the Supreme Court, nor any other nominee made by our current president. Rather, the people should decide the direction the country should go and the Supreme Court should take by way of the next presidential election.

Wayne - March 19, 2016

there has not been much that obama has done that is good for the people so far. I do not think that he would be for a good choice judge.

David Jefferson - March 19, 2016

No appointee until the election is over…..

Terry Craw - March 19, 2016

No. It is the responsible next president to appoint highest court judges.

Timothy Minick - March 19, 2016

I agree with VP Biden that no Supreme Court confirmation should take place in a presidents last year in office.

carlace sides - March 19, 2016

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! We the people have had enough of Obama’s liberal policies and appointments and executive orders.

Mark Morton - March 19, 2016

This is the most important appointment EVER to the Court; we cannot allow this President to destroy the Bill of Rights with a radical Leftist!

ruth penner - March 19, 2016

The Senate MUST NOT approve anyone or anything Barack Obama is in favor of! People in this country, and our country, are depressed and feel hopeless because of what this one man and his ideology has done to us. Who is better off? No one but he and his cronies. God help us if he is allowed to take any more steps toward moving this great country further away from the blessing of God which had made us the great country we were!

Mel Gardner - March 19, 2016

Absolutely NOT!!!

Kenneth G. Marx - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not. However, knowing how this Congress has acted in the past, I won’t hold my breath.

Jo Gillon - March 19, 2016

The position of Supreme Court justice should be left vacant until after the election and the newly elected president should be the one to appoint the position.

M.A. Ireland - March 19, 2016

Obama should not have nominated a potential judge and he must not be confirmed. There are too many liberal judges now. (Our country and beliefs are being taken away from us)

Don Bickers - March 19, 2016

I agree that the next president should make his or her own nomination because they will have to work with them.

Dona Griffin - March 19, 2016

The Senate should not confirm judge Garland. Illegal immigrants should not own guns. We should begin systematically pruning obsolete laws.

D - March 19, 2016

I am sick of all the party bickering! Presidents come and go. Government exists to govern. Get back on the job! Evaluate the merits of this appointee and vote to either accept or reject him based on that alone!

Phil and Evelyn Clark - March 19, 2016

Mr. Obama should not decide on the Supreme Court Judge. The people should.

Linda - March 19, 2016

Unfortunately the Supreme Court Justices are for the most part activists rather that interpreters of the law. Because of this, we must reject the President’s nomination for the Court.

Henry Hedden - March 19, 2016

NO! The people should vote for the Judges. And they should have term limits (Congress too),

Douglas A Slawter - March 19, 2016

no no no obama has done nothing but make big mistakes and this one would top all of them let the peoiple choose

Sharon Teter - March 19, 2016

Obama should definitely NOT have a say in who the next Supreme Court Justice will be.

John Meade - March 19, 2016

Should consider the nominee but not approve/or deny until hearings are held.
He might prove to be more moderate than the next president nominate if that person is a Democrat.

William Godshall - March 19, 2016

Absolutely, Positively not! Garland is as liberal, if not more so, than Obama.

The NRA-IlA is correct he is a second Amendment hater and would do everything in his warped mind to change the Constitution.

Look at his record and past associates.

Bobby McPheron - March 19, 2016

no way should this be allowed to take place ! it is time our republican party
should step up and put a stop to what is
going on with respect to this president..

Barbara Sherer - March 19, 2016

No, the Senate should not approve any judge that obumer puts forward. It will put all the power of the supreme Court in the control by the liberals. That would mean everything the 2nd amendment stands for will be tossed out. No more free speech, no more guns will be owned by private citizens. Our privacy rights will be taken away! How scary is that!

George kritko - March 19, 2016


Jane A knispek - March 19, 2016

Obama should not appoint the next supreme court judge. He has already appointed 2. It would be best if the incoming president appointed the next supreme court judge. It keeps a tradition alive that even Joe Biden thought was right when the shoe was on the other foot.

Gwen - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not.The American people deserve a vote after the next president is in office.

art anthony - March 19, 2016

no ,I want to know the names of the REpubs that are likely to vote for any of obamas judges!

Martha Perry - March 19, 2016

The Senate should NOT confirm Obama’s
appointee, Judge Garland, to the Supreme Court.

Clair Williams - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not!

Martha Gilson - March 19, 2016

No. Leave it to the people.

bob simpson - March 19, 2016

Heck no

W M Remington - March 19, 2016

No Way! All the dem rhetoric is just political grandstanding. Every precedent I know of says hands off, let the newly elected president nominate his own man.

Rick Hand - March 19, 2016

I think we should wait for the next President to make the appointment. We don’t need a President, who has worked for seven years to destroy our country as we know it, to decide the direction of the Supreme Court long after he has gone.

Bob Chynoweth - March 19, 2016

No ! The next president should appoint.

Marjorie Taylor - March 19, 2016

The Senate should not confirm Judge Garland. We need judges who will uphold the Constitution as it is written, not as their whim decides. I hope and pray that our next president will only appoint people who are like Scalia was in outlook.

Frank Freidhoff - March 19, 2016

A close examination of the record and rulings of the candidate should be made and then a decision as to a vote should be made. To just do as the Democrats have done in the past is not in the best interests of the country.

Sharon - March 19, 2016

ABSOLUTLY NOT Obama has messed with every law he was to protect already

Rita Misero - March 19, 2016

No!!! President Obama should NOT appoint another justice to the supreme court!!

Janet Eden - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not. I am sorry that there is one Republican senator from Illinois that is asking for the approval of Garland to protect his reelection. Where is his loyalty?

Harry W. Starr, III - March 19, 2016

Obama said he would filibuster a Supreme Court nominee and Biden said it should be after the fall elections. Why should we argue otherwise.

Sue - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not. I have had enough of Obama’s tactics which no one calls him on. It seems this congress is running scared.

Joseph Hartigan - March 19, 2016

I agree with the position on the Court. However, I would like your comments on loosing the Presidential election as a result of the party fighting against Mr. Trump. I do have misgivings, but feel he is better than Mrs. Clinton. Please give me your thoughts.

Louise Christensen - March 19, 2016

Five out of the nine validated non-conjugal marriage. We, the American people, need unconfused, logical, thinkers on the highest court in the land so as not to make itself ridiculous, and so as not to complicate ordinary lives. The Obama administration has had its day and shown what they are about; now we need an antidote. Definitely the senate should not validate that contaminated choice.

Diane - March 19, 2016

The Senate should not confirm any more lifetime nominations while this President is in office.

Larry - March 19, 2016

No I think the whole thing stinks and I end with this ! (Clever politicians should be tried for treason ) !!!!!!!!!

Homer Sherrill - March 19, 2016

No the replacement should be a Judge picked by A conservative to replace a conservitave Judge.

Kathleen O’Donnell - March 19, 2016

The Senate should not even hold a hearing to consider confirming President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court.

Deborah McLain - March 19, 2016

I think the Supreme Court Judge should be picked by the next president. Obama has already done enough damage. I sincerely hope the republicans in congress will not even take it for consideration but thwart it at every turn.

Nora garrett - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not!

Clarke Barnes - March 19, 2016

You would do well to show an example of his liberal stance demonstrated by his votes while a member of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. We surely do not want a Judge/Justice that continues to attack Christian’s and religious freedom as conceived by our founding fathers, or restricts gun ownership, or refuses to protect the unborn by failing to revisit the concept when life begins and the idea of free abortion as an expense of taxpayers.

Linda G. White - March 19, 2016

I vehemently oppose the Senate from confirming Merrick Garland as a Supreme Court Justice. It would open the door to totally changing our form of government to communism, removing all Constitutional rights and Bill of Rights from a form of a Republic to a tyrranical despotic serfdom. We are truly at a crossroads. The next president elected should determine the next justice. NO vote on any nomination Pres. Obama offers should be even considered. I am firmly opposed to any nomination of Pres. Obama for Supreme Court. Justice for the same reasons as Edwin Meese.

Kenneth Robinson - March 19, 2016

President Obama is acting out his responsibility as our President to bring forward a nominee. The Legislative branch is acting out its responsibility in deciding what to do about the candidate the President proposes. If they decide to postpone consideration of a Supreme Court nominee until after the election. they are acting within their constitutional guidelines and I would like that they do that. We as a society are killing our children. Around 60 million by federal government records since Roe V Wade.

Harold Bess - March 19, 2016

The Senate should not confirm President Obama’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland.

Virginia Harmon - March 19, 2016

No, I feel that the American public should have a say in the choice of our next Supreme Court Justice.

Paul D’Aigle - March 19, 2016

No, Mr. Obama should NOT be given that choice.

Bruce Mehew - March 19, 2016

The Senate has no obligation to confirm ANY of the President’s choices to fill the Supreme Court. They can confirm or deny any of the new justices. It’s up to the Senate to hold hearings or not. If Bush was in office, I guarantee you that Harry Reid would deny any justices Bush puts up for a vote.

robert cruz - March 19, 2016

Absolutely not

JAG - March 19, 2016

Balance the Supremes for the health and happiness of this Republic. Leftists tend to write “corrections” on law.

James rector - March 19, 2016

No the country and rule of law hangs in the balance

John Batista - March 19, 2016

No! The republican senate should stand firm.

Janet Scaruffi - March 19, 2016

Not just NO but definitely NO !
If congress had any morals potus wouldn’t still be in office much less put a judge in office.

Martha Stanford - March 19, 2016

Mark Kirk is a turncoat Senator who sits on obama’s lap! ;-(

Eleanor - March 19, 2016

Since our “trusted” representatives can’t seem to do the jobs they were elected for I think ALL positions in our government should have set terms, not life terms, and this includes the Supreme Court Justices, and the congress, who are letting Obama tear down our country and it’s Constitution!! Obama should NOT be allowed to over-ride congress to elect the next justice!

Fred Maddalena - March 19, 2016

No Confirmation. He does not uphold the Constitution. He violates it.

Ed Rouse - March 19, 2016

No Confirmation until after Election!!!

Dennis E. Huntington - March 19, 2016

I don’t think we should allow Obama to appoint a new judge. I don’t think our Supreme Court is even doing what it was meant for. It is not meant to be a President’s second hand to allow him to run the nation like an emperor or a power to overturn what the majority of the citizens vote to support. We aren’t even a a free nation any longer when only 5 judges can over rule everyone else.

Lester - March 19, 2016

Lifetime Supreme Court and the Justis Dept Attorini US General Office should have never been up to the President of the United States ! It should have been up to We the People by Two year vote ! This mistake in our history 1864 gave Communist and Marxest a wide oppen barn door to drive a freight train of Socialism and Communism threw! Any attempt by this treasonous Democratic party by the president to stop this unique opportunity to chose the next Supreme Court Justice by Democratic got for the president of the people should be considered an act against Democracy !!!

Margot Moreno - March 19, 2016

The Senate absolutely should NOT confirm President Obama’s appointee to the Supreme Court.

Karen - March 19, 2016

Under NO circumstances should a Supreme Court Justice be appoointed at this time. It needs to be the perogative of the next administration.

Bill Ramsey - March 19, 2016

The people must be allowed to make the decision.

Perry Anderson - March 19, 2016

I was thinking also that Obama has appointed two justices already. This situation now doesn’t leave the impression that he was somehow overlooked while he served. Now to hear the Pres. speak should not surprise us in his “woaho is me” performance. He has been slighted and turned back time and again has he not as he speaks of the lack of performance from Congress.
The man sure has proven the the thought that it doesn’t take much character to run for and be elected as President of the U.S. What record he said he had was buried by his favorite lawyers. We the people really don’g expect much from our politicians and that is exactly what we are getting.

Fred Morse - March 19, 2016

Congress needs to step up to president Obama and say no appointment of a replacement judge until the next president has been elected and in office!

Patrick Cimo - March 19, 2016

No. The NRA has just come out in opposition to this nominee for his past ‘weak-kneed’ stance on the 2nd. Amendment.

Scott Brooks - March 19, 2016

Merrick Garland is not a proper replacement for Scalia. Garland is too anti 2nd amendment and too pro enviro liberalism, EPA regulatory scope. Obama nor Congress does not have popular support so it should be left up to the next elected president and Congress

William Purdy - March 19, 2016

Absolutely NO!

James Young - March 19, 2016


lawrence muhr - March 19, 2016

No, the Senate should not confirm a person nominated by Obama. I guarantee that I will vote against any Senator in my state that votes to confirm anyone before the next President is elected.

Bernita Way - March 19, 2016

President Obama should not be allowed to select any candidate for the Supreme Court, let alone Mr. Merrick Garland. He should keep his nose out of the nomination! He has already done too much damage with his selecting the justices that he has
appointed over the last seven years!

Nicole Barnes - March 19, 2016

I absolutely agree with you. Keep up the good work!


Glenn kellen - March 19, 2016

He will destroy the second amendment

Elizabeth Houghton - March 19, 2016

A nonequivocal NO!!

Herbert Phillips - March 19, 2016


Cheryl Sanford - March 19, 2016

Yes I agree. This is a great idea.

Cheryl Sanford - March 19, 2016

Yes I agree. This is a great idea. Wish I thought of it first !

Sheron White - March 19, 2016

No, he should not select, as he should not have done many other things he has done.

Debra Wilson - March 19, 2016

I did not vote for Obama. But is it not his right as the President to do this?

Randy Hosking - March 19, 2016

Absolutly not! Even Biden said a Justice should never be appointed in an election year. The Left hippocricy knows no bounds.

Thomas Perusse - March 19, 2016

Give him a hearing & vote up or down. Democrats will make a political issue of not doing so.The move may determine election.

Dorothea Wechselberger - March 19, 2016

Dear Sir:
This Mr Garland is considered a moderate.
His background seems solid. I opine he should be vetted by the Senate.
Also, it is very likely there will be a Democrat elected President who may choose one/two liberal candidates for Supreme Court justice. The Democrats may also retake the Senate and the liberals will be confirmed.
Consequently, our Consttution will be diluted further.

P. L. Bates - March 19, 2016

No. Obama has done enough harm to this nation and to the American people. He should be empeached before he does any more damage.

Frank Mazeitis - March 19, 2016


Johnny miller - March 20, 2016

No way Obama has destroyed the USA he should be fired today

John G. - March 20, 2016

There is no reason to move quickly on this issue. As the Kagan appointment illustrates, a lack of time to truly consider the experience (or lack of it in Kagan’s case) of the candidate, as well as their political leanings, etc. can lead to poorly qualified judges gaining one of the most important positions in our Government. This lifetime appointment needs to go to one of the finest legal minds that we have today, not to some law school graduate who has written a few papers and decided a few cases. The vetting process must take enough time to find a worthy candidate, not one that is politically expedient. After the Kagan appointment, it is my opinion that six months at a minimum should go into this nominating process by the President, with confirmation hearings to follow. This makes it unrealistic for Obama to make an appointment as he is fundamentally incapable of taking to appropriate amount of time to make a decent decision.

Lawrence MacIntyre - March 20, 2016

The President has a duty to appoint a replacement for the Supreme Court and Congress has a duty to vote on the confirmation of Judge Garland. The people have a voice in this, and they spoke (twice) when they elected the current president.

kim Daproza - March 20, 2016

The Senate should do its job delay they do not have to make snap decision

Mr. Leslie Tyler Nelms - March 20, 2016

It has been standard operating procedure as well as constitutionally accepted practice to not vote on a supreme court nominee for a president in his last year in office. I do not agree that the president should have his nominee voted on until the next president takes office.

Denise - March 20, 2016

I do not believe that Obama has the right to do ANYTHING that affects the future of this country at this point!!!!! He’s proven his dislike, if not hatred, of this country in so many ways already.

Joel Rutter - March 20, 2016

The Senate should NOT confirm Obama’s appointee to the Supreme Court.

Teresa Urena - March 20, 2016

No, Obama should stay on the golf course, or better yet in Cuba until his term ends. He has done everything possible to “transform” our great nation. Congress should not confirm anyone appointed by this tyrant.

John - March 20, 2016

When a president has recommended judges with his own view alone; Has erected a multitude of new offices (FEMA Camps); Sent swarms of officers to harass people opposing his view (IRS); Has excited domestic insurrections among us (BLM); Has endeavored to bring in inhabitants that will overwhelm our ability to sustain our country in the near future (illegal immigration); Has insisted proof of citizenship is a hardship for American Citizens in order to vote and, within a short time of his presidency opted to take Secret Service protection for life, we as American citizens should be given the choice of a new president (not a political party) and be able to elect judges to the bench. The real question though and the advocacy should be is this presidency and its liberal allies be allowed to disregard the Constitution and stay in office?
But to answer your question….The senate should not confirm…..Absolutely Not!

Bob Ellis - March 20, 2016

The Senate should not hold hearings and allow the election to take place. I just hope the establishment republicans don’t make a mess of the elections and give it to the democrats as this would ruin any chance of a conservative justice.

Dorothy Baisden - March 20, 2016

I do not think Obama should have any say in this matter. He should wait and let the next President select.

Steve Evans - March 20, 2016

Absolutely Not!

Diane Woodard - March 20, 2016

No, the senate is correct to delay the appointment. Obama has already done great damage to everything we as American citizens hold dear. There is no harm in waiting for the new 2017 administration.

lawrence r nilssen - March 20, 2016

Of course not. Have a perfunctory hearing, and vote “no” if you must, but only if you must, and know that you have the “no” votes in advance.

Joan Casto - March 20, 2016

No. Under no circumstances should congress
Agree to allow President Obama appoint another extreme liberal judge to the Supreme Court.
These are lifetime appointments and would have long term affects on our current democracy.

Robert Rood - March 20, 2016

Absolutely NOT!!!

R Miller - March 20, 2016

The Senate should not vote or even consider a Confirmation Hearing for any and all, Obama late term, SCOTUS or other Federal Court appointees. Past precedents apply. Let the voters decide.

Stella Paysor - March 20, 2016

No confirmation!!! This is so alarming! Please someone stop Obama!!

Henry C. Holder - March 20, 2016


James Compton - March 20, 2016

1. The next Supreme Court justice should definitely be appointed by the next POTUS.

2. The 2nd Amendment phrase “shall not be infringed” makes every gun law ever passed unconstitutional, IMO. Besides, “outlaws” don’t care about law, so why pass gun laws that don’t work?

3. Absolutely, out-of-date laws should be pruned out.

Esther Sidat - March 20, 2016

The Senate should proceed very cautiously, taking their time, and knowing how to avoid the obstructionist label. And since, as with John Roberts, no one would have predicted that he would vote with the liberal-minded judges in the AHCA, who knows what the next new judge will do in the end? After all, he has a tenure for life!

Valerie - March 20, 2016

No Supreme Court appointment by Obama!! Absolutely NOT!!

Donna Hawley - March 20, 2016

the supreme court justice should be appointed by the next president..!!!!

Robert G – Irvine CA - March 20, 2016

Rob G – Irvine CA The next President must have the opportunity to propose the next candidate for the US Supreme Court, NOT the Obama.

Donald Trester - March 20, 2016

Absolutely not, a government by the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE.

Judith Fader - March 20, 2016

(Article II, Section 2) The President “shall nominate” possible appointees to the Supreme Court. So, it is his duty to put forth a nominee.
However, his nominee cannot be appointed without the Advice and Consent of the Senate and two-thirds of the Senators (present) must concur with his choice of nominee(s).
The Senate should follow Constitutional guidelines.
The good news (to me) is that, I strongly doubt that Obama’s choice will get enough votes to get appointed, and second, I don’t see anything in the Constitution that requires the Senate to actually take a vote–it just says that the President can’t appoint Supreme Court judges without the Advice and Consent of the Senate.

Leonard McChesney - March 20, 2016

Of course not. The problem is that our gutless senators, devoid of any do-or-die principles of sound republican governance, are not likely to act rightly on their own.

Dennis Ray Smith - March 20, 2016

Definitely not!

Marion - March 20, 2016

No. We are dissatisfied. Let the people decide the direction of our country by election of the next president. Then decide the Supreme Court justice.

Pauline Sturdy - March 20, 2016

Obama should have no say in who is appointed for the next justice of supreme court

G Roger Gathers - March 20, 2016

Obama is an American disaster, and not even a legitimate president. His last appointments to the court were chosen purely for their political orientation. One had no experience at all as a judge! We should not have to put up with any more of his junk.

Betty Stokes - March 20, 2016

The current President should have no voice in deciding who the next Supreme Court Justice will be. Absolutely none.

Yvonn Curran - March 20, 2016

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NEGATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Patricia Leonard - March 20, 2016

The people should decided the direction of the country. The Senate should not confirm any judge Pres. Obama would put forth. The decision should be in the hands of the next president.

Helena Tarnovetski - March 21, 2016

Obama has no right to elect the Justice of the Peace, this should be done by the people on election day…

Carol Mattick - March 21, 2016

NO, the Senate should wait until next year to confirm a new Supreme Court Justice. It would not be fair to the new justice or to the country to appoint a new justice at this time. They would not be able to make an informed decision this late in the process of court rulings.

Stephanie Wilson - March 21, 2016

h-ll no!! we have enough liberals on the court!!

Margery Gantz - March 21, 2016

The next President should be the one to make the nomination – thus giving the ‘people’ some say in this most important matter.

Kristina - March 21, 2016

No, the Senate should not allow any discussions about replacing Justice Scalia until after the next presidential election.

Bill Hoffmann - March 21, 2016

The Senate has the duty to advise and consent to the President’s nomination. They should investigate, deliberate and then vote up or down.

Mark Brandrud - March 21, 2016


Craig Iascone - March 21, 2016

I would think that the Biden rule would apply here. This the choice of the people not Obama and his cronies. We have lost enough of our freedoms under this administration.

Kim Haynes - March 21, 2016

Absolutely not. With the time remaining of this administration, no such lasting decision should be made by that sitting president or Congress. And yes, I agree the people should have a vote on this matter. I believe the people have very much been left out of any Federal Government matter for years now. So if I am right, then let me ask, “Where is our government that is for the people, by the people and of the people?” Because I have not seen this in a long time. And very much less so under this sitting president. We need our Constitution put back into practice. We need a government that is much more representative of the majority of the people, not just some of the people. And this sitting president has done nothing, but represent minority groups across the board. He has totally dismissed the majority throughout his presidency. So, no he should not be allowed to reside over this decision.

Bill & Betty Whitehead - March 21, 2016

I say we invoke the Biden Rule and the Schumer Axiom. NO SCOTUS Justice until after the presidential elections have made clear the peoples’ choice.

Larry Megenhardt - March 21, 2016

Next Supreme Court Justice should be appointed by next US President.

Dr. Nicholas R. Napoli - March 21, 2016

NO!! Hell NO!!!! Leave this up to the new Administration, Congress and the citizens of the United States of America.

Patrick j. Gilhooly - March 21, 2016

The republicans in the senate need to hold firm. What’s fair is fair. If a lame duck republican refrains from appointing a supreme court judge, so should a crybaby liberal democrat. They always want fairness for everyone, unless it isn’t in their best interest. 😉

Linda Braden - March 21, 2016

Let the next president make the nomination.

Edie reagan - March 21, 2016

Absolutely not, if he appoints a justice we will have our constitutional right to bare arms taken away by the end of this year and we will be unarmed just like rest of the world that has been murdered and unable to protect themselves from people that like Obama has made the world a very dangerous place to live. I pray that we get through this year without more pain, and suffering we have ready felt from people that hate us , and no one protecting Americans.

Elaine Coles - March 21, 2016

NO! However, if Clinton or Trump fill that office, I would be worried as to who they will choose.
We are in a terrible place! Presidential candidates from either side are pathetic! They make a mockery of ALL that the Constitution stands for. Either one will easily be a dictator much like Obama who should have been impeached on more than one occasion.

John Hill - March 21, 2016

The Senate should listen to the people instead of politics on this issue we have the future of our constitution on this vote. To move forward at this time is a move against more than a Judge to fill a seat but a move against our freedoms and the people that have given their lives to protect them

josefina montes de oca - March 22, 2016

no he shoud’t, no way.the senate could refrain to vote, is their prerogative.

Chauncey Isenhour - March 22, 2016

Only one vote away from so many issues makes it undesirable for Obama’s selectio to be approved. Is there any way to put term limits on court judges? Lifetime is to much packing for posterity.

Daryle Johnson - March 22, 2016

Pres. Obama was elected by over a 5 million majority for a FOUR year term. Not allowing a vote on the nominee goes against precedence and the meaning of the constitution. I am advising all my friends and relatives to vote against Sen Grassley. He has become a political hack, putting politics above the good of the countrhy.

Walter Aldridge - March 22, 2016

I completely agree with General Meese! All Supreme Justices should be held to Constitution. All decisions must be referenced to Constitution or the Preamble. Senator McConnell should use the Biden rule and stand fast.

Daniel Moore - March 22, 2016

The process should not be held up. Hearings and a vote should be taken. If the nominee is not suitable so be it, on to the next. Nothing is gained by obstructionism. I like to see my government function. This would be dysfunction. Our do nothing congress should hold the hearings and take a vote. Playground tactics. Take the damn high road for a change, you might actually get to Scotland before me.

Elaine D Kent - March 22, 2016

No appointment should be made until the people elect our new President – it should be the peoples’ choice, not the Obama administration’s. They’re on the way out! Thank goodness for that!

Dianne Franke - March 22, 2016

NO. No vote.

Sharon Wernli - March 23, 2016

The Senate should not vote and should stand their ground so that the next President appoints a justice.

Richard f. Lazevnick - March 23, 2016

The supreme court should have a balance of different views to stay Fair & honest in decision making. Thank you.

Dorothy Will - March 23, 2016

President Obama should NOT appoint any more Supreme Ct. justices. He has done enough damage already. There is no urgent need for him to replace Scalia & Republicans should not give in to the demands of Obama or Democrats on this issue.

Retta - March 23, 2016

Absolutely NOT!!!!!!

Richard Simpson - March 23, 2016

The Senate should take no action until the next President has been sworn in.

Charles T. Pickett - March 23, 2016

WHAT? The wrongness of this suggestion is an indication of just how far we’ve strayed off the course set by the Founders. Not to mention the very transparent motives of Barrack Hussein Obama. Let the people speak: first, elect a President: their collective will then reveal itself without tarnish.

Charles T. Pickett - March 23, 2016

That we are debating this is a clear indication of just how far we’ve strayed from The Founder’s original intent. Play by the rules, elect a President by the established procedures and the choice will be made by those who will be governed by their choice of President looking forward, not by a pathetic individual wrongly chosen for all the right reasons.

Jim Cavanagh - March 23, 2016

If it continues let there an up or down vote after proper vetting of this candidate

Fred Barksdale - March 23, 2016

Absolutely not should Obama select the next Supreme Court Justice. He reminds me of a dog who tastes blood for the first time and continues removal of obstacles to his agenda by devious means. The selection should be left up to the will of the people and their selection of our next President. I just pray to God the next President is one who loves the USA as did our original founders and uses good judgment in his selection.

GAry and Patti - March 24, 2016

NO, No, No, people decide,

june - March 24, 2016

Absolutely Not

David S Kearton - March 24, 2016

The US Senate should not make the mistake of vetting Judge Garland and ascertaining if he is judicially qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. Senate Mitch McConnell should not let any Supreme Court nomination be scheduled until the next President has been elected and has taken office.

Carol Blunt - March 25, 2016

Yes the Senate should do it’s Constitutional duty the people have spoken “WE THE PEOPLE ” elected President Barack Obama not once but twice and last time I looked he was still President the time is 12:31 am

Mr. and Mrs. Person - March 26, 2016

The Democrats do not want we the people to be the governing body of the US.

David Kennedy - March 27, 2016

NO! Obama is not qualified to appoint another liberal, non-constitutional judge.

Brian Cleary - March 29, 2016

Judge Garland, who is President Obama’s nominee, is a better nominee than we would probably get from a President Clinton or even a President Trump.

Mary Kelly - April 1, 2016

We need to wait until a new President is elected.

Allison Webb - April 2, 2016

We have too much hanging in the balance, as far as the state of this nation,is concerned. To not let the American people, collectively, determine what direction our nation should go,as well as have a voice in the selection for the next U.S. Supreme Court justice would be a grave mistake. Our nation’s government has become so powerful that each of the three branches have forgotten their roles, both as individual entities and as a collective whole. The majority of the power,in Washington,today, needs to be handed back to the state and local governments. Those in Washington D.C. have forgotten that the U.S. government works for the American people — not the other way around.

Howard Burger - April 14, 2016


Julia Wood - May 28, 2016

No. Hell no!

T.J. Thomas - October 18, 2016

So now that Clinton seems to have a good chance of winning, do you agree with the Republicans who are now saying they’ll block the next president’s nominee if the next president is Clinton?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.