# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Justice Antonin Scalia thought it shouldn't make too much difference who sat on the bench. If Supreme Court justices hewed to his originalist philosophy, deciding cases was a matter of applying objective criteria - personal experience shouldn't enter into it.

But in his dissent to Obergefell v. Hodges, which found that the Constitution guaranteed a right to marriage for same-sex couples, Scalia argued his colleagues had every reason to be concerned about diversity. A group of nine people who look so little like America couldn't be qualified to do the democratic work of making law. And making law (the proper function of the legislative branch, not the judiciary) was exactly what he thought his colleagues were trying to do.

Scalia ticked off the ways he and his colleagues fell short of being representative of the country:

Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination.

How likely is the next nominee or confirmed justice to address the problem of diversity and representation on the Supreme Court? We don't know the full pool of candidates President Obama is considering, but we do know one especially likely source of nominees: circuit courts. Seven of the eight current justices were serving on circuit courts when nominated, and so are several of the potential Scalia replacements whose names are being floated.

After paging through all 158 of the active federal appellate judges' official biographies, articles about their appointments, and, yes, their wedding announcements, I found that the circuit courts are more diverse than the Supreme Court. That is, they're more diverse by two of Scalia's metrics: where the judges grew up and where they went to school.

Just over a quarter of circuit court judges attended either Harvard or Yale Law School, offering a number of options for breaking those schools' lock on the Supreme Court. But there may be a political factor that favors the nomination of those schools' alumni. Linda Greenhouse, who has covered the Supreme Court for The New York Times and teaches at Yale Law School, said, "Presidents want sitting judges with impeccable credentials, and these two schools count." In other words, presidents want their nominees to get through the often contentious nomination process, and it may be an easier sell if the nominee went to a brand-name law school.

Compared to educational diversity, geographic diversity is harder to find. More than half of circuit court judges (54 percent) hail from the East or West Coast.

Looking for judges who satisfy both categories narrows the pool considerably. Only 54 circuit court judges neither attended Harvard nor Yale Law School nor grew up on a coast. But not all of those people are plausible Obama nominees. When I ignore those who were not nominated to their current posts by other Democratic presidents, I'm left with a pool of 29 judges.

Even that includes some people Obama will probably never consider. Obama wouldn't be likely to pick the two judges in their 80s who match my criteria, and if he's looking for someone under 60, he only has 11 circuit court judges to pick from. As the pool gets shallower and shallower, you can see how difficult it can be to shake up the court's demographics.

And I still haven't touched Scalia's last criterion: Finding any kind of Protestant to add to the exclusively Jewish and Catholic court. But data on the religion of sitting judges is difficult to come by. I called two of the 12 circuit courts, and both their court officers declined to comment on judges' faith.

Even if Scalia intended his indictment of the homogenous court primarily to ridicule his colleagues, Jonathan Kastellec, an assistant professor at Princeton University, told me that changing the composition of the court really could change its decisions. In his own research, he's found that not only do African-American judges differ in how they rule compared to judges of other races, but also that their presence makes a difference. Their colleagues vote differently when serving in a racially mixed group compared to an all-white one. Other researchers have observed similar effects on male judges who serve with women, rather than with all men.

If adding judges from a broader range of faiths, schools and hometowns did shift the court's decisions, Scalia wouldn't have seen it as a victory for diversity, though. He would have viewed it as damning evidence that his colleagues were deciding cases on something other than what the Constitution's creators intended. If he could influence the nomination process at all, he'd probably repeat what he'd said before: If he couldn't have someone who agreed with him, he just wanted someone smart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Whomever Obama Picks May Not Meet Scalia's Definition Of Diversity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Justice Antonin Scalia thought it shouldn't make too much difference who sat on the bench. If Supreme Court justices hewed to his originalist philosophy, decidi...

# data[].attributes.body
President Obama should be able to nominate the next supreme court justice. If it is his duty as president, then it doesn't matter if he only had three days as president. He should still be the one to nominate the next successor.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that President Obama should obviously appoint the new justice and it is his right and duty. If there are over 300 days left then why should we wait that long to let a new president decide. In my opinion, that is a little stupid. The Republicans seem like they just want Obama out of here and want a republican president in the next election. I think that Obama should decide this and go through it as it is his privilege and right to do so.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/opinions/supreme-court-posner-broyde/
Justice Antonin Scalia passed recently, so the Supreme Court needs another justice. The president can appoint someone to the court through a recess selection. this temporary appointment would last until a justice is confirmed or December 2017. this article is talking about justices they are thinking about appointing.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/

Scalia's death has caused Obama to appoint a new judge into the supreme court. But the senate doesn't want to pass the judge because that will make the court more liberal and the senate is mostly conservative. So, the senate wants to wait so that the next president will hopfully appoint someone more conservative

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/San-Antonio-professors-Scalia-respected-and-6829370.php

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was known for being  very conservative and not afraid of a good argument.  People describe him as a very kind and thoughtful person, but some say he wanted to know what everyone was thinking or what they wanted to say but didn't. Antonin Scalia was a great Supreme Court Justice leader and I hope the President Obama nominates another very conservative Court Justice leader that is like Antonin Scalia.

# data[].attributes.body
After Scalia's death, the president must nominate a candidate to fill that place.But Senate Republicans are backed by their parties to block anyone that Obama nominates. The Supreme Court says "none of the justices has ever served on the high court without Justice Scalia." This means they believe no one can fully replace her seat. The justices plan to switch seat.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/

After, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia a feuding debate had started. There was a debate over if President Obama should appointment a new replacement or just wait until the next administration. Scalia was one of the most influential consersative justices in history. With the news of his death many opinions are soaring weather or not the President should have the right to appoint a new justice. President Obama announced that he would nominate someone in "due time". Harry Reid believes that someone should be appointed a soon as possible because there are issues pending before the Supreme Court that need to be addressed.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/

When Scalia died Obama wanted someone who would tilt the balance of the supreme court onto Obama's side. But while that is happening  people are wanting to wait so the next president could choose Scalia's replacement. And they are debating if they should put in two to three because of the benched ages

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/

After Scalia's death the republican party and democratic party feud over whether Obama should or shouldn't appoint the next supreme court justice.Obama has said that he would appoint the next supreme court justice "in due time" but republicans say that Obama shouldn't appoint and let the next administration appoint the next supreme court. Also, republicans say that the American people should have a say in who should get appointed to be in the supreme court.

# data[].attributes.body
After Scalia's death, the battle of the next nominee has grown to a start. Many say that the next administration should be the one to choose the successor, but many also believe that waiting for a whole year to choose a successor is not the best decision for the Supreme Court. The decision will definitely be historical and interesting.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death has sparked much controversy on who should appoint the next supreme court justice. Obama recently stated he will make a nomination soon. Senate Mitch McConnell stated his opinion wanting the next administration to make the appointment. He also believes the American people should have a say in the appointment and it would be best to wait until we have a new president. Scalia has been seen as extremely powerful and until Obama leaves office this controversy will continue to pressure Obama.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php#photo-9399619

Antonin Scalia at the time of his death was staying at a luxury resort in West Texas. When Scalia did not report to breakfast that morning, a person working at the ranch checked on Scalia and found that Scalia's dead body. His death is because of natural causes. No evidence of foul play was existent.

Many cared for Antonin Scalia and he will be mourned for, for a long time to come. Texas Governor Greg Abbott was quoted as saying, "He was the solid rock who turned away so many attempts to depart from and distort the Constitution."

# data[].attributes.body
In the article Majority Senate leader Mitch McConnell believes that a new Supreme Court justice leader shouldn't be chosen until Obama is out of office. He wants the new president to be in office so the people will be able to have say In who is in that empt senate chair.
But, despite what he says you can't not have a senator in chair. " It would be unprecedented to go a year with an empty seat. It would go against the Senates constitutional responsibilities"
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-meets-for-first-time-monday-since-scalias-death/

After Scalia's death, president Obama is held for the responsibility to nominate a candidate to replace her seat. The Supreme Court claim "none of the justices has ever served on the high court without Justice Scalia." Which makes it more difficult for any new candidate to fully replace Scalia.

The justices plan to switch the seats, in late March, according to their "seniority of the court." Or in other words, according the the longest experience to the least. Scalia served for the justice for 30 years, and because of her death, makes Anthony Kennedy the most experienced by 28 years. Obama is expected to review any material to furthermore find any possibilities for Scalia's seat to be replaced.

# data[].attributes.body
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whomever-obama-picks-may-not-meet-scalias-definition-of-diversity/

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has recently passed away. It is become difficult for the Supreme Court and the issue of replacing him has formed. The only problem is that this article explains that Obama can't just pick anyone to best fit what Scalia's position was. Just like the title of this article, the problem is, "Whomever Obama Picks May Not Meet Scalia’s Definition Of Diversity". He had a whole new idea on diversity and not something that anyone else would possess just like that. It was unique and this article explains it all.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/

There was very little time after Scalia's death that there was conflict between the republican party and Obama about the process of appointing someone to his position. President Obama is working on the replacement of this but it is known the most of the republican party will immediately refuse his decision. its said to believe Obama may be rushing to pick this replacement. Mitch McConnell claims that this decision should be put in the voters hands. whatever choice Obama decides to push with, its known that it will have a very hard time going through the republican party and will be a long process.

# data[].attributes.body
http://ktla.com/2016/02/16/obama-searching-for-new-supreme-court-justice-following-death-of-antonin-scalia/

This arrival is about the search for an new Supreme Court justice to replace Antonin Scalia due to his untimely death. In the arrival it states that Obama is looking currently for a replacement. But "one who accepts obama's invited will be walking into a political war zone". Last it states that the replacement is likely going to be democratic due to Obama being democratic

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/

Recently Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away at 79. This makes a predicament between picking a new supreme justice. Which Obama is trying to pick a new Supreme Justice, and even though he picks,  the next president might not approve on the decision. Also Obama has pick to pick a supreme court justice that would be liberalist or conservative. All together the process is very long and makes a lot of commotion.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/15/politics/obama-scalia-replacement-options/index.html                                                                           Since Antonin Scalia, a supreme court justice has recently passed away it is president Obama's job to appoint a new supreme court justice.During this process, Obama has a broad list of people that are considered for the position. Everyday the list becomes smaller until a select few are considered for the job.Then Obama makes arrangements to meet up with the finalist.After that he appoints a new supreme court justice. During this big decision Obama has to figure out if he would want to appoint a liberalist or conservative supreme court justice. Before he shortens the list of people to be considered for the position, he decides what kind of justice he would want in the supreme court. This could cause the process of finding a new supreme court justice a long process.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/02/15/obama-scalia-replacement-options-supreme-court-brown-dnt-tsr.cnn

Justice Antonin Scalia recently passed away of natural causes at the age of 79. Unfortunately, his death comes as justices are considering a number of major cases such as immigration, voting rights, and more. Because of his death there are now only 8 justices, which could result in a 4-4 final vote. This could lead to no precedent being set or the decision would be delayed until a new justice is named. Although they are already looking at a few new justices, Scalia's legacy will last forever.

# data[].attributes.body
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/19/6-supreme-court-rulings-that-could-be-overturned-if-a-liberal-replaced-scalia/

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passing away sets up quite a predicament in the political "battle" between the conservatives and liberals.  This article explains how before Scalia's death there were five Republican justices and four Democratic justices but now the two parties have equal representation in the Supreme Court for the time being.

If Scalia is replaced with a liberal justice then previous Supreme Court rulings could be changed, such as Shelby County v. Holder, which took power from the federal government to shoot down election laws in the states if the federal government believed they discriminated against anyone.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/13/466686993/replacing-antonin-scalia-will-be-no-simple-task

The death of Antonin Scalia sets up a huge political battle: it is President Obama's right to nominate his replacement, but Republicans in the Senate and elsewhere are promising to strike down his nomination.

In the mean time, what happens in the Supreme Court should be interesting, since there are now an even number of justices.