After the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, many people have offered up their opinions on what should happen in regards to who should replace him. It is the president s constitutional duty to nominate someone for the role, however several Republicans have voiced their dissent, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).Directly after the announcement of Scalia s passing, McConnell wrote on Facebook a message of condolence for his family alongside this remark. 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. However, according to Sarah Burgess on Twitter, McConnell contradicts his own current views. In the 1970-71 Kentucky Law Journal, McConnell wrote: At the outset, the Senate should discount the philosophy of the nominee. In our politically centrist society, it is highly unlikely that any Executive would nominate a man of such extreme views of the right of the left as to be disturbing to the Senate. However, a nomination, for example, of a Communist or a member of the American Nazi Parly, would have to be considered an exception to the recommendation that the Senate leave ideological considerations to the discretion of the Executive. Political and philosophical considerations were often a factor in the nineteenth century and arguably in the Parker, Haynsworth and Carswell cases also, but this is not proper and tends to degrade the Court and dilute the constitutionally proper authority of the Executive in this area. The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform. To that end, the Constitution gives to him the power to nominate. As mentioned earlier, if the power to nominate had been given to the Senate, as was considered during the debates at the Constitutional Convention, then it would be proper for the Senate to consider political philosophy. The proper role of the Senate is to advise and consent to the particular nomination, and thus, as the Constitution puts it,  to appoint.  This taken within the context of modern times should mean an examination only into the qualifications of the President s nominee. According to himself, McConnell would have to agree President Obama is within his full right and duty as Commander-in-Chief to nominate someone who he deems appropriate for the role of Supreme Court Justice. Even if that means  altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court.  He should still see that to be  perfectly legitimate. However, with the times being as they are during an election year, you can see why Republicans are terrified of an Obama nominee, because the implications would be huge surrounding several cases, including cases surrounding voting rights.To say the least, it s not surprising that McConnell is a giant hypocrite contradicting even himself and his own view of the law. Hopefully he ll come to his senses sooner rather than later.Featured image: Flickr