You or I might not like one, but the senate has no right to reject one if a president chose him or her. Look at Ginsberg and Breyer. It's not about whether you or I like their philosophy; it's about the president, winning an election, exercising his choice, which is his to make as the winner of the election.
Really? Looking at the Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 it reads
...by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.They should be looking at these judges a little harder instead of just rubber stamping anything the President sends up. Consent, not only advise. God knows what the past decades of that has gotten us for the most part. If the supposed conservative party in Congress had been on the ball a little more over the past nominations and not lockstep partisans, perhaps things may have been a bit different.
Although I don't expect the hacks to fall out of step with the President and the Democrats see something they like about this guy, so it should be a relatively easy approval process. Unfortunately
Says who? Where does it say the Senate has no right to reject a nominee? Show me that one.