Should Hillary renominate Garland

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Yes, because it's the easiest way to get a quick liberal majority without burning the SC filibuster - something that she's pragmatic enough to know could bite the party in the butt down the line. A Senate with 51-52 Dems would likely be able to pass Garland because the hardline Republicans would know they can't win this fight. The public will have spoken and they have no more argument.

Also, because of the perception, right or wrong, that this was Obama's vacancy to fill. By honoring his wishes, she curries good will with her base. She's also guaranteed to get at least one, probably two more vacancies during the four years.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

voted yes, because we need a Jewish majority on the supreme court

What the Court really needs is a good, Bible-believing Baptist.

What the Court really needs is a mandatory retirement age.

This is one of my least favorite ideas in political reform discourse. It's worse than term limits.

I have to concede this will easily result in Presidents appointing younger and younger candidates, but I'm not very comfortable with the idea of someone sitting on the court for like 40 years.

The obvious solution is to put term limits. 18 years, with one Justice's seat up every 2 years, seems reasonable.

The idea of every President getting to name two judges is my favorite part of this. Equalizes the whole process.

How would sudden vacancies be dealt with?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I have hard time believing any party would seriously invoke the nuclear option. Both would probably prefeer to retain a possibility to filibuster in the future.

Agreed. That's why Hillary is likely to take this opportunity if presented her. Scalia for Garland is a trade most Democrats would love to take, especially since she'll definitely get to replace Ginsburg and Breyer with little to no opposition.