Scalia was conservative, and his death was untimely. Seems natural to believe it's fair that he should have been replaced by another conservative. It certainly would have preserved the status quo. Why do you think it was a pick that belonged to the Democrats?
I can only assume you are being facetious here. Perhaps you are ridiculing the idea that one "side" or the other got to do a replacement because of the timing of Scalia's death while a Democrat happened to be president.
I think the wailing and gnashing of teeth is amusing on this thread. It's about power. The Republicans held the Senate. They were under no obligation to vote on Obama's nominee. The only thing they had to fear was the potential wrath of the voters, except that the voters didn't seem to mind, so there was no wrath. Well, ok, there was plenty of wrath in solidly blue states, but the incumbent Republicans had nothing to fear from their own constituents.
I think to most people the idea of leaving the seat vacant and letting the voters decide who got to pick the replacement seemed fairly reasonable.
What might be interesting would be if one party controlled the senate and another the White House, and the senate simply refused to vote, ever. Maybe for four years. If the voters did not rebel against the inaction, how long could it go on? I could see a lawsuit saying that the senate had to at least hold a vote, but if they voted the nominees down, I can't see a successful lawsuit saying either they had to confirm someone, or that the confirmation process itself could be skipped.
The way things are going, we might be able to find out. This time, they held the seat for a year, and the voters didn't seem to mind. I'll bet that the voters would be willing to let it go a lot longer. Will we see a multi-year vacancy in the future that lasts until the Senate and White House are controlled by the same party? It looks like that's where we are headed.
