In the days since Justice Scalia's untimely passing, pundits and scholars have been using the history of Supreme Court nominations and confirmations to make their chosen political point - either that the Senate should or should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee in an Election Year.  

Despite the large margin by which Sen. Bernie Sanders defeated Secretary Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, she leaves the state with 15 delegates, half the state's total. The Democratic National Committee’s delegate allocation system is strange to say the least:

The practice of the Senate not confirming Supreme Court nominees in an Election Year has not been made up by Republicans in response to Justice Scalia's untimely passing.  It is a rule first outlined by the Democrat poised to replace Sen. Harry Reid as Minority Leader.  

The RNLA mourns the sudden passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, along with the rest of the country.  His passing leaves a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and though Justice Scalia can never truly be replaced, a justice to succeed him will be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  The justice to succeed Justice Scalia should not be nominated by this President and confirmed by this Senate, however.

While the RNLA mourns the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia, the importance of finding the right successor, especially in a presidential election year is paramount.  In a press release yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated:

In last night's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders reiterated what has become one of the themes of his campaign: 

Bernie Sanders is not only attacking our freedom of speech but he is proposing to do so in a manner that directly contradicts the most basic of judicial tenets. Justices cannot bind themselves to decide a case before it is before them. This is a basic tenet of judicial ethics.

Once again, the chicken little vote fraud deniers went crazy in advance of New Hampshire's primary yesterday.  As this article full of misinformationdetails on the reaction on the left on having to show ID:

The NY Times released a transcript of the Democratic debate that took place on February 4, 2016. The debate took place in a vivid dream world where priorities, reason, and logic cease to exist and are replaced by individual desires, general disregard for the laws and judicial system of our country, and a desire to place limitations on our freedom of speech. It is a world where hopeful democratic politicians believe that being president would grant them the right to throw Supreme Court decisions out the window and threaten our most fundamental of rights. The level of absurdity was ample, depressing, and quite frankly terrifying.

The North Carolina voter ID law is in the process of being challenged in court by leftist opponents from all over the state and beyond. They continue to contest voter ID laws with everything they can due to their stated belief that it will disenfranchise voters or more cynically, as a strategy to turn out their base.