The US Senate has a hard time passing new bills precisely because it reflects the growing ideological divide in this country. This should be a time for less activism and more consensus-building, not less.
>The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in 19 percent of cases.
The president only has a right to nominate a judge. He needs the consent of the senate to appoint one. If the senate does not consent, no rights are being denied.
>Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would consider any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president
It's a political judgment call of whether it will be a net benefit to them. (My guess is that they'll conclude that packing the court is not but term limits for future nominations are.) But it will undoubtedly be constitutional -- and pushed as far as they think it can be.
wether the party controlling the senate will grant the president his constitutional right to appoint a judge
Not granting someone their constitutional right can only be interpreted as claiming that doing so is unconstitutional.
Adding more judges would help a little because the random affect of a judge dying is smaller, though it’s still not a good long term fix.