Justice Antonin Scalia had not yet been given the last rites of his beloved Roman Catholic Church when a political firestorm brewed up over whether or not he should be replaced under an Obama administration.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell threw down the gauntlet when he said that the Senate should wait until a new President is elected before confirming a replacement for Justice Scalia, saying, “The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) agreed, saying “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year.”

The issue was one of the first brought up at the Republican debate in Greenville, South Carolina, when Ted Cruz also stated that such confirmations hadn’t been made during an election year in 80 years.

Moderator John Dickerson challenged Cruz on his assertion, and was promptly schooled by the senator.

And naturally the Democrats are all for replacing Justice Scalia with another liberal Obama appointee.

Hillary Clinton decided to shame recalcitrant Republican senators in her statement on Justice Scalia’s passing, saying that Republicans who want the seat held vacant for now “dishonor the Constitution,” and that the “Senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons.”

Statement on the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: pic.twitter.com/xazj9dDd5c

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 14, 2016

Hillary suddenly concerned about dishonoring the Constitution and avoiding partisan politics — that’s rich, especially from the woman who, along with her husband, has plumbed new depths of partisan politics.

And then there’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who said that Scalia himself would have wanted a quick replacement. Really.

“He understood as well as any public servant that a full and functioning Supreme Court is essential to the survival of our nation of laws, and he worked dutifully to fulfill his role in that process . . . we would also do well to ensure that the consequential questions of our time not be left hanging in the balance, twisted by politics, allowing our nation to move forward as our founders intended,” she said.

Debbie fails to understand that the founders intended for justices to be appointed with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, not just to quickly rubber stamp an Obama nomination. From Article II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution:

He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. (boldface mine)

What does President Obama do with this sudden vacancy? Of course the lame duck president plans to nominate a successor “in due time,” as he said in a speech given earlier last evening from Rancho Mirage, CA. Gotta have that legacy, you know. “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time,” he said, which some took to suggest that he would not try to force a recess appointment while Congress is out through next week.

Well, that makes me feel better. Or not. There is precedence for a president making recess appointments to the Supreme Court. There have been twelve justices appointed to the Supreme Court during a Senate recess, the most recent being three appointments by President Dwight Eisenhower.

Obama and the Democrats are rushing to fill the gap brought about by the untimely death of the great originalist champion on the Supreme Court, and they will be insistent on replacing him with a liberal judicial activist. They refuse to wait to see whom the American people decide will be their next leader. Party above people, you know.

The loss of Justice Antonin Scalia should sound an alarm to Republican primary and caucus voters in the crucial upcoming months. This nomination is not about which candidate sounds the toughest, or claims to have magical solutions to problems, or tells the voter what he or she wants to hear. The nomination of a Supreme Court justice should now be foremost in every conservative’s mind. As Ted Cruz said on the debate stage in South Carolina,  “Justice Scalia’s passing tonight underscores the stakes of this election. Voters must determine who on this stage has the judgement to nominate and confirm principled constitutionalists to the court.”