With the sad and sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday, there has been a lot of talk about the vacancy left on the Supreme Court. President Obama said Saturday that he plans to “fulfill his constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time.” Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell stated that Scalia should not be replaced until after the next President is inaugurated next January, because a firm five Justice left leaning majority in the Supreme Court would rule in favor of an expanding executive branch or would unilaterally and undemocratically promulgate laws for 320 million Americans coast-to-coast.

Senate Republicans, who hold a majority of seats, shouldn’t capitulate to a lame-duck President by confirming President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court. Doing so would yield irrevocable consequences for a generation to come.

The obstruction of Supreme Court nominees isn’t new. In 2004, Senate Democrats filibustered and blocked then-President George W. Bush’s nominees to the Supreme Court. In 1987-1988, Senate Democrats blocked Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court (this led to Anthony Kennedy being nominated in November of 1987 and confirmed in February of 1988).

Moreover, in 1968, the nomination of Abe Fortas was blocked by Sen. Thurmond (R-S.C.) because then-President Johnson was leaving office less than six months later and Sen. Thurmond thought that the Republicans could win the election that year (and they did). With the Democrat’s two candidates being a self-proclaimed socialist and a scandal-ridden former Secretary of State under FBI Investigation, the current election cycle mirrors 1968’s election climate (incumbent Johnson had very high public disapproval rates over his policies in Vietnam, much like Hillary Clinton, who has massive public distrust rates).

The seat needs to be filled by somebody, eventually. While Democrats held the majority in the Senate during the first few years of the Obama administration, the Senate rules were changed so that filibustering would not be allowed to block an appellate court nominee. With this new rule in place, President Obama has been able to line lower courts with left-leaning justices.

Since a 4-4 vote in the Supreme Court means that the lower court’s decision is upheld (they don’t create a federal judicial precedent, though), and the lower courts are lined with liberal justices, there must be somebody to be able to break the tie.

No Justice can ever fully replace Justice Scalia, but the eventual appointee must be a textualist (somebody who interprets the statues by what the text says), an originalist (somebody who interprets the statues by their original intention), but most importantly a justice who does not buy into the idea that the Constitution is a living document.

Many cases on the Court’s docket are very controversial cases. If Justice Scalia never put a vote in on a case, it doesn’t count. That means that crucial cases’ majority opinions will be the wrong decision, or a tie would set the appellate court’s decision in stone.

“Texas v. United States”, for example, is a momentously consequential case because it addresses whether or not President Obama usurped his Constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” with his executive order barring deportation for 5 million illegal immigrants.

A liberal majority on the Supreme Court would set in stone that executive actions that violate federal immigration law are, in fact, constitutional. This can, of course, be overturned by a later court decision, or the executive order can be rescinded by another president, but setting this precedent means that the Executive branch will continue to expand and disregard the Congress, whom the people democratically elected to represent them.

“Fisher v. University of Texas” is another incredibly important case because it deals with the question of whether affirmative action practices violate the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause.

A liberal majority on the Supreme Court would set in stone that government-funded Universities are allowed to continue their practice of affirmative action, a process that not only hurts minority students who are accepted to a college that is too rigorous for them personally but also high-achieving students who are rejected just because they white.

Even worse than the precedent set by one case, a liberal majority on the Supreme Court would yield a generation of judicial activism and promulgation of legislation from the high court. Much like how the Supreme Court rewrote Obamacare twice (in 2012 and 2015) to keep the law alive, the Supreme Court would promulgate interpretations completely different from the text to promote an ideological agenda.

If President Obama wanted a nominee to receive the Senate’s consent, he would nominate somebody who could receive consensus among the Senate. However, President Obama has only ever considered the Constitution an obstacle to his progressive agenda, by throwing Congress under the bus to pass Obamacare and to unilaterally rewrite immigration policy.

The Supreme Court is a revered institution in American politics. With a recent trend towards judicial activism, the possibility of judicial tyranny needs to be blocked. As John Adams once said, “people cannot be free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one Assembly.” The need for a limited judiciary is important; five unelected justices shouldn’t promulgate law over 320 million Americans.

The Senate, elected by the people, must not confirm leftist Justice that seeks to expand the judiciary, nor shall they let the President sway the court for a generation during his last year in office.