Which is what prompted my question: What would be the Constitutional result? It seems to me everyone is all about putting that aside for a year, as if that would be the Constitutional "right" thing to do. That kind of "convenience" stuff is the kind of stuff I am already sick of.
If there is a reason for the Senate to oppose Obama's appointment, then so be it. But to just say oppose it period, or a candidate for office to say it is theirs to appoint, to me, seems counter to the Constitution.
It seems to me that there will be three person tickets in the Election: President, Vice President, Supreme Court Justice. That also isn't Constitutional, but how could that be avoided? Then you have some of the Senate seats that are up for Election which will be dragged into this.
I think the Constitution is wise. This needs to be handled according to how our government works. Assuming of course that Scalia passed naturally, and assuming the President submits an appointment that can be reasonably confirmed.
I disagree, this is a political decision. Who is up for a vote is the potential nominator and confirmers of the next Justice.
The Constitution lays out a process. Executing that process is a political decision. Since this is an election year, let the public weigh in through their votes first before we get a nominee.