The article is right in saying that the emphasis should be on the constitution and its limited powers for government. No sooner was Scalia reported as gone when the partisan bickering broke out in "liberal vs. conservative". The conservatives in particular couldn't stop talking about abortion. They would say something about sticking to the constitution and the first and usually only "example" out of their mouths was "abortion", as if that has anything to do with the powers of government to prevent, let alone the constitution. Spokesman after spokesman made the same diversion, further corrupting the debate over the criteria for a Supreme Court justice.

Then the Republican political strategy emerged: "let the people decide" so don't let Obama do anything about a replacement for the rest of the year before leaving office -- with nothing said about the fact that Obama was elected by the "people" for the full duration of his term in office, and nothing said about principles and constitutional limits on government power that Obama stubbornly want to further reverse as his "fundamental change" even though the rights of the individual and nature of constitutional limited government are not supposed to be up for grabs by any election no matter who is elected.

A Supreme Court Justice should be a firm believer in these United States of America, a historian of this republic and a scholar that exegetes the U.S. Constitution. Being a Judge has its pro's and con's, but being a strict U.S. Constitutionalist is paramount.

This is my 2 cents worth

What any rational person would want in a Supreme Court Justice is to do his or her job. That job being an interpretation of the Constitution as it corresponds to the cases before him or her. Scalia, with very few exceptions, was that Justice. What we all should want is for the person selected to live up to their name -- JUSTICE.

I want a Supreme Court Justice who is a strong supporter of individual rights, and will come down on the side of such rights whenever he or she is given the authority to choose between competing interpretations of the Constitution's text.

How about a judge that thinks the constitution in its original intent was too intrusive and should be scaled back to the limits imposed (and powers allowed in 1781) in the Articles of Confederation.

for me the who part is Judge Andrew Nepalitano

Someone who actually believes the 9th and 10th Amendments would be nice...

[sarcasm]Congress could just admit aloud that the which interest groups get support from the court is part of the spoils of the presidency. Then they could hammer out an agreement to appoint/confirm someone who will give a little something for all interest groups and ignore the law altogether. Let the people decide who best represents all groups. This would be easier if we didn't have to pretend to respect the law. [/sarcasm]

I agree with this article in total. A Fuller is exactly what we need, as well as a new President that will probably have the chance to appoint two more Fullers.
By the way, what was wrong with being a Jacksonian Democrat? Every time the term is used it is very negative. I recently read "American Lion" by Jon Meacham and liked Jackson a lot. I don't think letting bums sleep in the downstairs of "the peoples house" would be practical today but other than that, there was a lot to like.

There is still some probability that Cruz could get the nomination and Hillary could be indicted. All is not yet lost. It is also possible that Trump could overcome the odds and defeat Hillary. I'm more concerned that Hillary could be disqualified and Sanders could win on the votes of the looters. 'Downright scary thought!

a defender of unalienable rights...period.

If Hillary becomes President, she is likely to appoint Obama or someone even farther left. The Senate is wrong to blindly refuse to consider any Obama appointee. If he/she is rejected on substance, fine. However, an up or down vote is morally required if Obama can find someone to accept his nomination. Napolitano hasn't got a chance of being considered although he would be excellent.

If they simply cannot resist politicizing it and say "let the people decide [in the presidential election]," they should agree to give a bank check to whomever the next president wants to appoint. :)