This month's sudden death of Antonin Scalia, a 79-year-old U.S. Supreme Court justice who served 30 years, sets the stage for a high-stakes political tussle in Washington, D.C. Most Republican senators insist the Democratic president shouldn't pick a successor during an election year that could change which party is in the White House. Leaving the seat open until next year would mean inconclusive outcomes if the remaining justices split 4-4, so President Obama plans to pick a replacement soon.

The constitutional process is for senators to question the nominee at hearings then and vote on whether to confirm her or him. "There's more than enough time for the Senate to consider . . . the record of a nominee that I present and to make a decision," the president said three days after Scalia died Feb. 13 from an apparent heart attack. "I intend to do my job. . . . I expect them to do their job as well." But many Republicans vow to stall. "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice," says Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a presidential candidate, declares: "We're not moving forward on it, period."

The vacancy is no ordinary job. A lifetime appointment to the national court, which is closely divided now between liberal and conservative justices, "has the potential to reshape American life for 30 years," says New York Times legal affairs reporter Adam Liptak. Two of President Obama’s nominees already are Supreme Court justices -- Sonia Sotomayor, confirmed by a 68-31 Senate vote in 2009, Elena Kagan, confirmed a year later by a vote of 63–37. Each replaced a male justice who retired. Refusal to consider a nomination this year, says Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, "would prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk."

President says: "The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now."

Editorial says: "Senators are free to vote yes or no on any nominee. But not to vote at all is an enormous insult and grave disservice to millions of Americans awaiting justice." – The New York Times

Senate committee chair says: "I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decision. In other words, take it a step at a time." -- Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, head of the Judiciary Committee