Supreme Court vacancy is tangible test for 2016 candidates

WASHINGTON -- The presidential election just got real.

The unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia -- and the immediate declaration from Republicans that the next president should nominate his replacement -- adds even more weight to the decision voters will make in November's general election.

For months, the candidates have espoused theoretical, sometimes vague, policy proposals. Now, the prospect of President Barack Obama's successor nominating a Supreme Court justice immediately after taking office offers a more tangible way for voters to evaluate the contenders.

Candidates in both parties moved quickly to reframe the election as a referendum on the high court's future.

"Two branches of government hang in the balance, not just the presidency, but the Supreme Court," Ted Cruz said in the latest GOP debate, held just hours after word filtered out Saturday about Scalia's death in Texas. "If we get this wrong, if we nominate the wrong candidate, the Second Amendment, life, marriage, religious liberty, every one of those hangs in the balance."

Democrat Hillary Clinton painted a similarly stark scenario.

"If any of us needed a reminder of just how important it is to take back the United States Senate and hold onto the White House, just look at the Supreme Court," Clinton said.

Clinton has said she would have "a bunch of litmus tests" for potential nominees, including a belief the Citizens United ruling clearing the way for super political action committees and unlimited campaign contributions should be overturned. She also said the court's makeup is crucial to preserving abortion rights and the legality of gay marriage nationwide.

Bernie Sanders, who is challenging Clinton for the Democratic nomination, has raised opposition to Citizens United as a requirement for any Supreme Court nominees.

Scalia, a hero of conservatives during his nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court, was found dead Saturday at a resort ranch in Texas. The court is divided between four liberal and four typically conservative justices, putting the ideological tilt up for grabs.

Obama pledged to nominate a replacement in "due time," even after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said that responsibility should fall to the winner of the 2016 election.

Obama could try to get a nominee through the Senate this year, taking a high court vacancy off the next president's immediate to-do list. Even if that were to happen, a confirmation vote probably would be months away, leaving the Supreme Court in the center of the campaign during the nomination process.

With three other justices over the age of 75, the next president could have other vacancies during his or her tenure, even if Obama fills Scalia's seat. It's unclear how the new focus on the Supreme Court might affect voters' decisions in an election that has seen surprising and unconventional candidates such as Donald Trump and Sanders challenge their parties' establishments.

Previous political thunderbolts that were supposed to push voters toward more traditional candidates, such as last fall's terrorist attacks in Paris and California, passed without any negative effect on Trump and Sanders. In fact, Sanders has strengthened since then, with the economic-focused Vermont senator handily defeating Clinton in the New Hampshire primary and finishing a close second in the Iowa caucuses.

Trying to counter Sanders' momentum, Clinton has urged voters to consider which candidate is most electable in November. With the balance of the Supreme Court potentially on the line, Clinton and her allies are certain to increase their warnings about the risk of sending a self-declared democratic socialist to face a Republican in the fall.

Among Republicans, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and John Kasich are casting themselves as candidates who could appeal to swing voters in the general election and put the GOP in position to guide the next court nominations. But that could open them to questions from Republican primary voters about the ideological purity of their judicial choices.