I think the choice of who is to be a justice of the SC is always critical – it’s no more or less so at the moment. It seems to me you think it is because you worry that a new justice may make decision different to what you think s/he should.

There is no indication that Judge Garland isn’t fully qualified to be a SC justice. If he isn’t, a hearing will discover that and fully justify a vote against his confirmation.

If the more liberal justices aren’t qualified to do their jobs, that’s the fault of those that confirmed them. While there are obviously those who disagree with them, there seems to be no indication that they aren’t qualified.

The majority of USians these days want same-sex marriage to be legal and abortion to be available. Conservative Christians are no longer in a majority. They, of course, have every right to continue to maintain their beliefs, but they don’t have the right to force their beliefs on others. Same-sex marriage and abortion being legal doesn’t make them compulsory – those who don’t agree with those things can continue to not do them.

And yes, it’s up to the people to change laws, but they elect representatives to do just that – represent their views when new laws are proposed. Holding a referendum over every law change is not only impractical, it would be wrong. In a select committee, representatives are presented with all sorts of evidence and other information to enable them to make the best decision for the people they represent. Most people simply do not know enough to make a fully informed decision on every proposed law. That creates the problem of lobbyists and the potential for bribery and corruption, and there need to be ways to ameliorate that.

Some people do cling to stupid beliefs out of ignorance. I’m sure you know people like that yourself. Look at all the otherwise intelligent people (and yes, most of them are, embarrassingly, liberals) who think vaccination is a bad thing. We can’t allow the rest of the population, including their own children, to suffer because of their ignorance imo.

The point is not to seek a nominee who holds the same opinions as a predecessor on issues of the day. (The justices’ personal attitudes ought to be irrelevant, because they ought to decide cases based on the law as it is, not as they wish it to be.)

The point rather is to seek a nominee who evinces respect for the rule of law, support for democratic self-government, and appreciation for Constitutional limits, including the very limited role of federal judges. In Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito we find superb role models. Of the other sitting justices, unfortunately, four demonstrate unremitting hostility to these principles, and one is wobbly. In these present circumstances the choice is critical.

As already discussed, the Constitution requires no action by the Senate, and in this case doing no harm would be in the Republic’s best interests. One can argue that a President should enjoy discretion to select his or her own subordinates within the executive branch, but that argument does not extend to judicial appointments.

Democratic self-government is a cornerstone of the Enlightenment, but so-called “progressives” aren’t too keen on it because they regard ordinary citizens as backward and unprogressive (some citizens it seems even believe in God). As Obama once revealingly put it, ordinary citizens just cling bitterly to outmoded values. Or as you (Heather) put it, they simply fear change. (No, that’s not it at all — there’s plenty that needs to change. What people dislike is stupidity.)

Society indeed evolves, and that’s why we have legislatures, initiatives and referenda, and finally, procedures for amending state and federal constitutions. (State constitutions have been amended around 12,000 times.) In a republic it is up to the people, not rulers, to change the law.

The Republican party cannot cooperate with the President because the Republican party is in revolt against itself. The working class/tea party/evangelical base that has continuously bought into the trickle-down theory, that what is best for the corporations and CEOs is best for the country, has found its champion, Donald Trump, and will not be lured into accepting another McCain, Romney, Rino. It all works in Hillary’s favor.

Why is the only acceptable candidate someone who will vote like Scalia? Did Scalia replace someone with the same views as him? Do the current justices have the same opinions as those when it was first established? Society evolves, and the problem is that many conservatives are simply scared of change. I don’t want to go back to the way women’s rights were in the 1970s let alone the 1950s, and despite his abilities, there’s no doubt that Scalia’s attitudes belonged to a previous age.

Garland is a perfectly reasonable nomination in a divided political climate. When Obama was elected, one of the constant refrains from those who opposed him was that he had the most leftist voting record in the Senate. Therefore, I’m sure that he would prefer to nominate a much more left of centre candidate than Garland.

There is a Constitutional requirement for Obama to nominate a replacement; there is no requirement for that nominee to hold the same views as the one s/he is replacing.

You talk about legal precedent. I thought the whole idea of having a constitution was that it trumped everything else, but you want a speech made by Biden more than 20 years ago to trump the Constitution. Quite honestly, your position is ridiculous.

I would be saying the same thing if there was a Republican president too. The only thing that might give me pause is if the president was within a couple of months of leaving office and his approval rating was at a really, really low rate so that it was obvious that s/he no longer had the support of the people and his/her party would not win the upcoming election. Even then, I would maintain the right of the president to make a nomination of his/her choice. That is not the case at the moment, Obama has majority support both nationally and internationally, and the Democrats have a better than 50% chance of winning in November.

That’s exactly right. But I think Obama is too clever to take the risk. What he actually did was nominate someone with impeccable qualifications who is quite centrist, while I’m sure he would rather have gone left. This is an example of the very conciliation and accommodation you seem skeptical of.

Nothing would prevent Obama from appointing himself. But I was referring to judicial philosophy, not personal qualities.

What kind of rock would Obama have to look under to find an arrogant bigoted a-hole like Scalia?

Great idea, let’s give that theory a test. With regard to the Supreme Court vacancy, Not-X would be someone who indisputably would carry on Justice Scalia’s judicial philosophy. So Obama should appoint someone like that, and we’ll see the Republicans’ knee-jerk opposition.

Does this look like Republican cooperation to you?

https://goo.gl/e2driZ

https://goo.gl/e2driZ

Posting the link twice to see which works.

Well said, rickflick!