The direction of the Supreme Court was one of the most important issues in the election, and rightly so. Over the last three generations, both the size of government and the Court's role in influencing it (by, for example, resolving basic cultural questions about marriage, abortion, gun rights, free speech and criminal procedure) have grown tremendously.
Ascendant Republicans and President-elect Trump want a Justice in the Scalia mold -- an originalist and a textualist, a jurist who believes the Constitution says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. It's less clear to me what the Democrats want. Some seem to want a liberal leader in the mold of Justice Ginsburg who will move constitutional doctrine to the left. Others seem to prefer an "identity candidate" -- a woman, gay, transgender, black or Hispanic -- largely for symbolic and/or political value.
It will come as no surprise to readers that I prefer the originalist/textualist choice. Strict fidelity to the text and original meaning of the Constitution seems to me to be the best way to curb judicial license and keep the most fundamental decisions about the rules we must live under where, overwhelmingly, they belong -- in democratic self-government.
With the filibuster for Supreme Court candidates still among the Senate's rules, however, and the Republicans having only 51 (probably to be 52) of the required 60 votes, the question is how to get a Scalia-style nominee confirmed.