Conservative US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died, setting up a major political showdown between President Barack Obama and the Republican-controlled Senate over who will replace him just months before a presidential election.
Mr Obama called Scalia, who served on the nation's highest court for nearly 30 years, a "larger-than-life presence" and said he intended to nominate someone to fill the vacant seat before leaving the White House next January.
"I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibility to appoint a successor in due time and there will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to give that person a fair hearing and timely vote," Obama told reporters in California.
Scalia, 79, was found dead at the Cibolo Creek Ranch resort in West Texas at the weekend. He died of natural causes, according to Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara, who went to the ranch and saw the body.
Chief Justice John Roberts described his former colleague, who was known for his strident conservative views and theatrical flair in the courtroom, as an "extraordinary individual and jurist".
Mr Obama ordered flags at the White House and all federal buildings to be flown at half-staff.
A number of leading Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, said they would oppose any attempt by Mr Obama to nominate a new justice.
The political battle lines sharpened later at the Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, where front-runner Donald Trump and several of his rivals said it should be up to Obama's successor to replace Scalia.
"Delay, delay, delay," said Mr Trump, who urged McConnell to block any Obama nomination.
Scalia, who grew up in New Jersey and graduated from Harvard Law School, was a leader of the "originalist" ideology that looks at the US Constitution through the lens of its framers' 18th century intentions.
He was the first Italian-American on the court and a devout Roman Catholic who had nine children. An avid hunter who wrote the court's 2008 landmark opinion supporting gun rights, Scalia also was a close friend of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with whom he shared a love of opera.
His replacement would be Mr Obama's third appointment to the nine-justice court, which is set to decide its first major abortion case in nearly 10 years as well as key cases on voting rights, affirmative action and immigration.
Waiting for the next president to make a nomination would leave Scalia's seat empty for at least 11 months, an unprecedented gap in recent decades.
Mr Obama's first two appointments to the court, liberals Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Elena Kagan in 2010, both experienced relatively smooth confirmation hearings in the Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats.
With Republicans in charge of the Senate and keen to exert their influence over the process, Mr Obama is likely to be forced into picking a moderate with little or no history of advocating liberal causes.
The White House is also likely to consider whether to nominate a woman or a member of a minority group, or someone who fits into both categories.
Among those mentioned within legal circles as a potential nominee is Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American judge who has served on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since May 2013.
It has been nearly 50 years since political wrangling between a president and Senate pushed a Supreme Court nomination into the next administration.
In 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren made clear his intention to resign and Democratic President Lyndon Johnson sought to elevate then-Associate Justice Abe Fortas, who had been a close confidant. Senate Republicans fought the nomination, claiming “cronyism,” and Johnson withdrew it. The appointment fell to his successor, Republican Richard Nixon.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here