The White House is said to be considering Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-Nev.) as a nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Here's what you need to know about him. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post) 
 
 The White House is considering picking the Republican governor from Nevada to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court, scrambling political calculations in what is expected to be a contentious confirmation battle in which Senate Republicans have pledged to play the role of roadblock. 
 
 President Obama is weighing the selection of Brian Sandoval, a centrist former federal judge who has served as governor since 2011, according to two people familiar with the process. Though the review process is in its initial phases and it is unclear whether the governor could ultimately emerge as the president’s pick, even the prospect of his nomination poses a difficult dilemma for Senate Republicans who have promised not to consider any nomination before November’s elections. 
 
 After The Washington Post published news of Sandoval’s consideration Wednesday, GOP leaders insisted that Obama nominating a Republican would make no difference. 
 
 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who on Tuesday pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before the election, said in a statement that the nominee “will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the fall.” 
 
 The No. 2 Senate Republican leader, Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, said likewise: “This is not about the personality.” 
 
 [Republicans vow no hearings, no votes for Obama’s Supreme Court pick] 
 
 White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday he would not comment specifically on whether the administration was considering Sandoval because he did not want “to get into a rhythm of responding” to every report on a potential nominee. But he said that Obama was committed to finding “the best person to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court,” regardless of party. 
 
 “The president’s focused on criteria that, frankly, is more important, and that is that individual’s qualifications, and their experience and their view of the law,” Earnest said. “That will take precedence over any sort of political consideration.” 
 
 Sandoval would represent an unconventional pick for the president, a former constitutional law professor who has prized prestigious law pedigrees and extensive legal backgrounds in the jurists he has previously selected for the Court. While the selection of a Republican could heighten the political pressure on Senate GOP leaders, it could also alienate the Democratic base and runs counter to Obama’s emphasis on taking a long view of who deserves to sit on the nation’s highest court. 
 
 Speaking to reporters last week, the president said he planned to select someone with extraordinary legal credentials. “We’re going to find somebody who is has an outstanding legal mind, somebody who cares deeply about our democracy and cares about rule of law,” he said. 
 
 A Sandoval spokesman, Mari St. Martin, said Wednesday, “Neither Governor Sandoval nor his staff has been contacted by or talked to the Obama administration regarding any potential vetting for the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.” 
 
 It is clear, however, that Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid, a fellow Nevadan with whom Sandoval enjoys cordial relations, is playing a key role as intermediary. While visiting Washington for a meeting of the National Governors Association, Sandoval met with Reid in his Capitol office Monday. 
 
 A person familiar with the conversation said that while Sandoval told Reid he had not made a final decision on whether he would accept a Supreme Court nomination, he would allow the vetting process to move forward. Another person in Nevada familiar with the process confirmed that it is underway. 
 
 Asked about a potential nomination on Saturday, Sandoval told the Morning Consult, “It would be a privilege.” He called the Supreme Court “the essence of justice in this country.” 
 
 [Everything you need to know about appointing a Supreme Court justice] 
 
 In a Wednesday interview with CNN, Reid said he would endorse Sandoval for the nomination. “I don’t pick the justices, but I know if he were picked, I would support the man,” he said. “He’s a good person, has a great record, and has been a tremendously good governor in spite of having to deal with some very big problems there.” 
 
 But in subsequent remarks to The Post, Reid tempered his praise and said he was “not pushing it with the White House” and was “just responding to people.” 
 
 “He was a good judge. He’s been a very excellent governor. I like him very much. I would support him,” Reid said of Sandoval. “I would rather we had somebody a little more progressive…. I’ll do what I can, but I’m not pushing his name.” 
 
 Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval spoke about his working-class roots during his address at the 2012 Republican National Convention. (Republican National Convention) 
 
 It is unclear how many potential nominees are under White House consideration for the high court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Obama was seen last week carrying a thick binder of materials on potential picks to review. 
 
 As the standoff continued with Senate Republicans, Obama reiterated Wednesday morning that he intended to “do his job” by nominating a candidate during the remaining months of his presidency. 
 
 Referring to McConnell and Senate Republicans on Wednesday morning, Obama said: “I recognize the politics are hard for them, because the easier thing to do is to give in to the most extreme voices within their party and stand pat and do nothing.” 
 
 But he predicted that the Republican position “may evolve” if the public believes his nominee is “very well qualified.” 
 
 “I don’t expect Mitch McConnell to say that is the case today. I don’t expect any member of the Republican caucus to stick their head out at the moment and say that. But let’s see how the public responds to the nominee that we put forward,” the president said. 
 
 [Sign up for The Daily 202 and get all the news you need on the Scalia confirmation battle and the presidential campaign] 
 
 Some Democrats see a Sandoval nomination as the best opportunity to fracture the front of Republican opposition and force McConnell to take up the nomination in this contentious election year. It would also put on the spot a handful of Senate Republicans who are up for reelection in blue states in November. 
 
 Several Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, which is charged with considering a Supreme Court nominee, said Wednesday that it would not matter if Obama picked a Republican. 
 
 “The short answer is no, it doesn’t change anything,” said Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). 
 
 But some Republican senators acknowledged a Sandoval pick would put GOP senators in a tough spot politically. 
 
 “This is one reason why I have not wanted to shut the door on considering a nominee,” said Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), one of two Senate Republicans who is at least open to a confirmation hearing. “We may well be sent a nominee who is deserving of thorough vetting and consideration.” 
 
 Another Republican senator aligned with the GOP court blockade, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly, said a Sandoval nomination would “mix it up” for Republicans. But the lawmaker also said he doubted that Democrats would unite behind Sandoval. 
 
 
 
 Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) is being vetted for the vacancy on the Supreme Court (AP Photo/Cathleen Allison, File) 
 
 Nominating Sandoval would carry clear political risks for Obama. Sandoval is aligned with Democrats on some key issues, including abortion rights and the environment. As governor, he has moved to implement the Affordable Care Act, and has said he considers same-sex marriage to be a settled issue. 
 
 [Who is Brian Sandoval?] 
 
 But Sandoval is not seen as labor-friendly — potentially alienating a swath of the Democratic base. His legal credentials are also lacking compared to some of the other names under consideration who are mainly sitting federal judges. And he initially called the landmark health-care law “unconstitutional,” signing onto a brief in 2012 challenging the constitutionality of the measure’s individual mandate. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected that argument, and upheld the law. 
 
 A Senate confirmation of Sandoval through this year could deny a Democratic successor to Obama, whether Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, the opportunity to nominate a more orthodox liberal to the court and cement an ideological shift in its jurisprudence. 
 
 Liberal activist groups quickly registered their displeasure with the idea of a Justice Sandoval. Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, said in a statement it was “downright absurd that President Obama would risk his legacy by appointing another anti-labor Republican like Brian Sandoval to an already overwhelmingly pro-big-business Supreme Court.” 
 
 “Nominating someone like Sandoval would not only prevent grass-roots organizations like DFA from supporting the president in this nomination fight, it could lead us to actively encouraging Senate Democrats to oppose his appointment,” Chamberlain said. 
 
 [Democrats troll GOP by floating a Republican for Supreme Court] 
 
 The Senate unanimously confirmed Sandoval as a district court judge in 2005 after he was nominated by President George W. Bush. The Nevada Republican stepped down from the bench in 2009 to run for governor and is now counted among the most popular governors in the nation. He also represents a swing state with a heavy concentration of Latinos who will be important in the presidential race. 
 
 One Republican who is considered likely to support Sandoval if nominated is Nevada’s junior senator, Dean Heller. 
 
 Heller suggested in a statement last week that the “chances of approving a new nominee are slim,” but he did not discourage Obama from putting forth a nominee. 
 
 “[W]ho knows, maybe it’ll be a Nevadan,” he said — a comment widely interpreted as signaling his support for Sandoval. 
 
 In a parallel story line, Reid and Sandoval have long had a symbiotic political relationship that sometimes defied logic. 
 
 Elected as the state’s attorney general in 2002, Sandoval quickly became one of the more popular Republicans in Nevada. In early 2005, Reid began pushing Sandoval to take a seat on the state’s U.S. District Court – a move that political insiders viewed as a savvy one to take Sandoval off the potential field of rivals who might run against Reid in his 2010 Senate race. 
 
 Sandoval was nominated and then confirmed as a federal judge in October 2005 without any opposition, clearing the Senate Judiciary Committee by a voice vote and then winning full Senate confirmation by an 89-0 vote. Four years later, as then-Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons’s popularity was imploding amid a variety of scandals, the state’s GOP elites persuaded Sandoval to bail them out and challenge Gibbons in a June 2010 primary. 
 
 Sandoval ousted Gibbons — and in November 2010, he routed Rory Reid, 53 percent to 41 percent, knocking off the Senate leader’s son. 
 
 Harry Reid, who is retiring in 2016, won his own reelection that year in a bid that left some surprised by the senator’s seeming reluctance to help boost his son’s campaign against Sandoval. 
 
 As governor, Sandoval alienated many conservatives by accepting the Medicaid expansion that was a cornerstone of Obama’s Affordable Care Act. One of his recent budgets, passed over the opposition of many Republicans in the legislature, included tax hikes designed to boost funding for the state’s notoriously underperforming public schools. 
 
 As the 2016 election cycle got underway a year ago, Washington Republicans set their sights on Sandoval as their top recruit to try to challenge Reid. However, in public and private, the governor made clear that he had little interest in running in a competitive primary and then challenging Reid in the general election. Reid is retiring in 2016, leaving a competitive open Senate seat behind him. 
 
 All this occurred while Reid repeatedly praised Sandoval for his positions on health care, taxes and education. And when the Senate Democratic leader announced in late March 2015 that he would not run for reelection, Sandoval returned the favor by praising his one-time patron for the federal judgeship. 
 
 “From humble beginnings in Searchlight to the United States Senate, Senator Reid’s story is one that represents the Nevada and American dream,” Sandoval said. 
 
 Paul Kane contributed to this report. ||||| Washington (CNN) In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans vowed to deny holding confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee -- even promising to deny meeting privately with whomever the President picks. 
 
 The historic move outraged Democrats and injected Supreme Court politics into the center of an already tense battle for the White House. 
 
 "I don't know how many times we need to keep saying this: The Judiciary Committee has unanimously recommended to me that there be no hearing. I've said repeatedly and I'm now confident that my conference agrees that this decision ought to be made by the next president, whoever is elected," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday. 
 
 He then added he would not likely meet with any nominee, a custom that high court nominees typically do before hearings. "I don't know the purpose of such a visit I would not be inclined to take it myself." 
 
 The decision to not hold hearings is a historic move from the Senate, which has regularly held confirmation hearings for nominees since hearings became routine practice in 1955, the Senate historian's office said Tuesday. 
 
 Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn said he also would not meet with a nominee. 
 
 "I don't see the point in going through the motions, if we know what the outcome is going to be. I don't see the point in going through the motions and creating a misleading impression." 
 
 Cornyn, a Texas Republican, told reporters at an afternoon press conference that the Republicans on the Judiciary committee submitted a letter to the Republican leaders unanimously opposing any hearing for a nominee to replace late Justice Antonin Scalia 
 
 South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said that's the "consensus" view among Republicans on the committee and Cornyn said the same. 
 
 "We believe the American people need to decide who is going to make this appointment rather than a lame-duck president," Cornyn said Tuesday as he left a meeting of top Republicans discussing how to handle the White House's promised nominee. 
 
 Graham told CNN separately he would not even meet with any nominee, should he or she make courtesy calls on the Hill. As did Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican. 
 
 But Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican, said he would meet with any nominee who came knocking. "I wouldn't have a problem with that. The President's going to do his job and I'll do mine." 
 
 JUST WATCHED The Scalia vacancy Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH The Scalia vacancy 00:42 
 
 A Fox News poll released earlier this month found that registered voters want Obama and Senate leaders to "take action to fill the vacancy now" by a margin of 62% to 34%. A Pew Research Center poll released Monday found a majority of Americans (56%) say the Senate should hold hearings and vote on Obama's choice to fill the vacancy, with 38% saying they should not hold hearings until the next president takes office. 
 
 In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor earlier Tuesday, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court. 
 
 "Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent," McConnell said. "In this case, the Senate will withhold it." 
 
 Democrats outraged 
 
 The announcement prompted sharp criticism from Democrats, who contended that the GOP-led Senate was failing to do its job and would be risking its tenuous hold on the majority in the fall elections. 
 
 Obama jabbed at Senate Republicans, tweeting Tuesday evening for Americans to tell the majority party in the Senate to "#DoYourJob." 
 
 "Refusing to even consider the President's Supreme Court nominee is unprecedented," he tweeted. 
 
 Refusing to even consider the President's Supreme Court nominee is unprecedented. Tell the Senate: #DoYourJob. https://t.co/kSrKv5e3Ae — Barack Obama (@BarackObama) February 23, 2016 
 
 Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said McConnell was taking his marching orders from Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump , who had called on the Senate to delay consideration of any nominee. 
 
 "That's exactly what the Republican leader is doing: Delay, delay, delay," Reid said. He angrily added that "333 days isn't enough to do the work that we do ordinarily do in 67 days." 
 
 But Democrats are uncertain over whether to bottle-up the Senate in retaliation for the GOP's hardball move. 
 
 Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Democrats should not hold up important measures like spending bills in retaliation. 
 
 "It is my hope that we will not simply escalate" the fight, Coons said. "It is my hope that the Republican majority will heed the advice of Sen. Kirk of Illinois and back down from an absolutist obstructionist position and allow a hearing to proceed. There is a variety of steps the Senate minority, the Democratic minority could take. I really would hope we could avoid it." 
 
 But other Democrats declined to rule out blocking legislation if Republicans block a nominee. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, said that there "will be a major battle" if Republicans block the nomination but he "won't predict now what form that will take." 
 
 Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that Democrats don't want to make the same mistake Republicans did by laying their cards on the table too soon. 
 
 "At the moment, we don't even have a proposed nominee, so I don't want to get ahead of my skis," Whitehouse said. "I think the Republicans have made a mistake saying they want to oppose a nominee before they even know who the nominee is. I think for us to say what we're going to do before we're at the point of decision would not be sensible." 
 
 Biden comments in spotlight 
 
 Earlier in the day, Vice President Joe Biden took center stage as Senate Republican leaders grew increasingly confident they can unite their party behind a hard-ball strategy to block any consideration of an Obama nominee. 
 
 Republicans are seizing on old Democratic talking points -- focused namely on Biden -- to make their case against confirmation proceedings. 
 
 The latest revelation: A June 1992 interview Biden gave to The Washington Post , arguing against confirmation hearings of a prospective nominee by President George H.W. Bush to the nation's highest court. 
 
 "If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the President not name someone, not send a name up," Biden, then the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, told the newspaper, noting how close it was to the November elections. 
 
 "If (Bush) did send someone up, I would ask the Senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee," Biden had said. 
 
 The comments from the nearly 24-year-old interview came after Republicans seized on a clip Monday of Biden making similar comments on the Senate floor. In response, Biden pushed back and said the GOP was taking his comments out of context. 
 
 "In the same statement critics are pointing to today, I urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the court functions as the Founding Fathers intended," Biden said in a Monday statement. "That remains my position today." 
 
 Nevertheless, the comments gave new ammunition to the hardening GOP lines against anyone the President sends to Capitol Hill. 
 
 JUST WATCHED Thousands attend Justice Scalia's funeral Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Thousands attend Justice Scalia's funeral 01:15 
 
 Republicans are worried that giving the new nominee an opportunity to present his or her case before a national audience will only give the White House momentum in confirming a nominee to replace Scalia, tipping the balance of the court. But it could present bad optics, especially if the nominee is viewed as highly qualified and Republicans refuse to meet with him or her. 
 
 Some vulnerable Republicans were prepared to side with their party's leadership as well, a heartening development for the Senate GOP. 
 
 "I think we should not confirm someone this year, I think we should let the people weigh in," said Sen. Rob Portman, a vulnerable Republican up for reelection from the battleground state of Ohio. "The credibility of the court will be enhanced by that, too." 
 
 JUST WATCHED GOP senator backs Supreme Court hearings Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH GOP senator backs Supreme Court hearings 02:20 
 
 But at the same time, two moderate Republicans -- Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Susan Collins of Maine -- support holding hearings, giving Democrats confidence divisions are bound to grow in the GOP ranks once a nominee is proposed. 
 
 "We should take this process one step at a time as we always do under the regular order," Collins told CNN. "I would expect that there would be a hearing on a nominee when it's sent to us for our consideration ... The hearing would help me make a better decision."
– President Obama on Wednesday told the Senate to do its job and at least give his eventual Supreme Court nominee a hearing: "They are then free to vote whatever their conscience dictates," he told reporters, per CBS News, but it's clear their "constitutional duties" include at least allowing a hearing. A hearing on whom? Well, per multiple sources who spoke to the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, the White House is currently vetting Brian Sandoval, the Republican governor of Nevada. He's described as a "centrist" by the Post, who says "some key Democrats" see him as "perhaps the only nominee" Obama might be able to get Republicans to consider. Mitch McConnell and the Judiciary Committee have pledged to take no action on any Supreme Court nominee from Obama. Would that change if the nominee is a member of their own party? Three GOP senators who sit on the Judiciary Committee all said no, but other Republican senators say getting a nominee like Sandoval could be cause to reconsider. Some Democrats believe nominating Sandoval would put some Republicans up for re-election in November in an awkward position, and could ultimately force the Senate to break its blockade. Sandoval, who has a "bipartisan record" per the Post and is aligned with Democrats on abortion rights and the environment, met with Harry Reid Monday, and a source says he allowed the vetting process to proceed but said he hadn't decided whether he'd accept a nomination. It's not clear how many potential nominees the White House is considering, but the Journal notes there are likely more.