Appointing Scalia's replacement -- WWSD ?

Within minutes of reports of his death, Republicans had already policitized the naming of Justice Scalia's replacement, demanding that President Obama not exercise his constitutional duty to nominate federal judges.   Mitch McConnell said that the American people should be allowed to express their opinion through the upcoming election, leaving the choice to the next president.

Senator Elizabeth Warren destroyed this argument, saying that the American people already spoke when they re-elected Obama for a second term, which runs through January 20, 2017 -- not just until the next SCOTUS conservative dies.

Conservatives wishing this not to be true does not change the constitution.    If Scalia had been the leading liberal on the court with a Republican president, does anyone doubt for a minute . . . honestly . . . that they would be arguing exactly the opposite?

If they really think that should be the law, let them pass a constitutional amendment, which is what it would take.   But realize what this would mean:  25% of the time, one full year out of every four, it would take off the table any SCOTUS appointment.  That's right.  The fourth year of every presidential term.

Let's recognize politics for what it is, be adults, and take responsibility for upholding the constitution which, in every other context, conservatives scream their insistence that we must do.   Better yet, let's ask them WWSD?   What Would Scalia Do? -- the ur-originalist and ur-textualist interpreter of the constitution.  We know the answer:   He famously hated the role of politics in judicial appointments.

Ralph