I’m not sure what you mean. The Constitution lays out a requirement for Supreme Court and specifies who nominates and who confirms Justices.
Other than that, it is a political question on the size of the Court, who sits on it, and their scope of Jurisdiction.
You said: I want to hear every candidate's thoughts on this. This is a clear test. Any candidate who even hints at letting Obama get a nominee on the court is disqualified in my eyes.
I'm speaking towards your "directive" above about how people in the political process of running for President should weigh in on the current vacancy when the current President still has a year left in office, Constitutionally speaking anyway. You make it some kind of "qualification" of candidates. I am just surprised at how you think that is somehow upholding the Constitution, or doing what the founders intended. That kind of stuff. It seems more to me that you want to suspend the constitutional stuff until circumstances favor the outcome you prefer. I am just calling that out is all.
There are a few specific things laid out in the Constitution as to which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. Otherwise, it’s specified by Congress.
BTW, Congress can write any bill with the proviso that the courts have no jurisdiction over it — it’s been done numerous times, but not since the 19th century.
We ought to use this more often.