Why Nominate a SCOTUS Justice?

       With the passing of Justice Scalia, a firestorm has erupted. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, stated flatly that the Senate would not even consider any nominee of Pres. Obama's. Now, to vote not to consent to an appointment is the choice of the Senate and it is theirs to make. But to refuse to even consider a nomination flies in the face of the Constitution. It is the responsibility of a sitting president to nominate a replacement to any vacancy for the Supreme Court.
       It is not the right of the Senate to tell the President not to fulfill his responsibility. The Senate's responsibility is to advise and consent. Even in the case of the nomination of Robert Bork by Ronald Reagan, that is being used as a reason to ignore the process, Bork did, in fact, receive the hearings and debate. He was voted down in the Full Senate, but he had his day.
       In fact his own words defeat the notion that the Senate should not even consider his appointment. After the Senate Judicial committee voted to disapprove, Bork stated that "There should be a full debate and final Senate decision", which he did receive. He further stated "If I withdraw now, that campaign would be seen as a success, and it would be mounted against future nominees. For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored.
       So, in other words, a man who understood he would not gain the appointment he so greatly desired, nevertheless demanded that he get a fair hearing from the whole Senate. Now the threat is that no nominee of Barak Obama's will receive any kind of hearing whatsoever. That smells bad. It smells like the majority in the Senate has more of an agenda against Obama than just a justice. There is no Justice in that.