As usual for Kent and Krauthammer, this piece nails it. The Framers expressly designed the Supreme Court appointment process to be both political and divided.

It's political because it is given over to the political branches, and divided because, as Krauthammer says, the President proposes and the Senate disposes.

Elections have consequences. Obama won in 2012 and gets to nominate, using whatever selection process he might choose. The process is nobody's business but his -- and I have never seen the press suggest otherwise.

McConnell and the Republicans won in 2014 and get to consent to a nominee, or not, by such method as they (not the opposition and the press) may choose.

Both the President and the Republican Senate are permitted to use political calculation to decide their course of action, and both will do so in spades, as we all know.

Of course we could have a system in which the remaining Justices choose their next colleague, subject (or not) to Senate ratification. But the Framers chose an expressly politically-oriented and (as noted) divided mechanism.

McConnell, as Majority Leader, decides if and when any nomination gets to the floor. And, I will say for the zillionth time, it's getting there on the 12th of Never.

I'll just close by saying that, as political battles go, this is more principled than most. This is not partisan squabbling. It's about fundamentals. Republicans want a Constitutionalist in the Scalia mold. Democrats want a living-Constitution person in the Kagan mold. That is a hugely important and worthy difference. If I were advising the White House, I would tell them to stand their ground. I would tell the same to the Republicans.

But I don't need to, because that's what they're both going to do anyway.