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

Yes.

Hopefully, he will be prevented from naming a new Justice.

Unfortunately, while I agree utterly with you, there is a large segment of the population who believes that the job of a Supreme Court Justice is to adjust the interpretation of the constitution to match an evolving concept of what society should be doing. The "living constitution" philosophy.

The occupant of the White House is firmly in that group and anyone he nominates will follow that philosophy. And probably make a majority.

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.

[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]

An error from the point of view of a Hamiltonian perhaps, but not from a Jeffersonian. The people were sovereign under the Articles and the state governments were not. Did the articles leave the door open to state government oppression? Yes, any pact that creates government has that flaw. Every government has that flaw, but the closer the people are to the governent, the better it can be controlled. The free market does a better job dealing with squabbling states than the constitution and its massive transfer of power to the feds via vague broken promises.

Of course, state governments can be oppressive too. The can instigate trade wars among themselves or institute and defend slavery. The Articles allowed virtually unlimited power to state governments. That was an error.

Exactly, that was the entire idea of the Articles. The people were fighting a war with the world's mightiest military power to regain their freedom and setting up another monarchy or dictatorship was not desirable. State governments are much easier to control by the people than the all powerful, looting nuclear-armed feds. Competition between states also helps to keep liberty flourishing.

Here, here! Do you have a particular person in mind?

Has anyone here actually read the Articles? It's pretty much a mess leaving enormous powers to the State governments.

The problem with that argument is that it frustrates the intendment of the very Constitution they pretend to revere. It's pure partisan politics and they ought to admit it. The "people" will decide all right and after Benito Trump is waxed by Hillary, they will reap the whirlwind when she appoints someone far to the left of Obama's choice.

If the court has people on it as I describe, then there could be at least a slim chance that your dream could be realized.

Then they should openly state what their purpose is and stop trying to hide principles behind "The People" rhetoric, which anyone can see through.

Those who want a constitutionalist on the court should say so and stop turning it into a hopeless liberal vs conservative battle.

Well, the "let the people decide" is, of course, a smokescreen. This is really about Obama getting to replace the most conservative judge on a 5-4 court with someone who will undoubtedly flip it. I wholeheartedly agree with stopping that. They could say "we're not going to and you can't make us". Which would probably be more honest.

In the end, it's a political decision and if the public agrees they will be rewarded and if the public thinks it's wrong, they will be punished -- politically.

The constitution is what we have. We should follow it. If you want to scale it back and limit powers, then amend it. That's the realm of the political process not the judicial one.

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.

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.

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.