Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

A nominee battle has been triggered after the death of justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday. President Barack Obama pledged to nominate a replacement two hours after Scalia's passing, but Republican senators demand that the nomination should be left to the new president. Given the Republican control of the Senate, Obama's pledge will be blocked.

The US Supreme Court has nine justices. Before Scalia's death, there were four liberal justices and four conservative ones, with another, although appointed by a Republican president, effectively acting as a swing vote. If Obama nominates a liberal justice, the values balance of the court will be changed. Given their lifelong tenure, the composition of the court will to some extent affect political tendency of the US society.

The US Constitution states that a president nominates justices and the Senate either confirms or rejects them. The president always nominates judges who hold values congenial to his own party. Thus, the composition of justices reflects the clout of the political party. The previous 4:1:4 pattern demonstrates that Democrats and Republicans have been well-matched for a long time.

The Supreme Court enjoys significant power. Its 2000 ruling resulted in George W. Bush's presidency and deprived Al Gore, who won the popular vote, of the chance to take office. Scalia was a conservative justice who opposed abortion, gay marriage and supported the death sentence. He also strongly objected to Obama's healthcare plan. The nomination of someone with opposite views will exert significant influence on the US bipartisan rivalry.

While the US values the principle of judicial independence, politics is still able to influence the principle's implementation and decides whether a sensitive case is more likely to be won by liberals or conservatives. The penetration of partisan politics into the top institute of US judicial system may invite suspicion about judicial independence or demand more explicit definitions of the limits of the concept.

The US didn't consider partisan politics when it adopted the separation of powers model upon its establishment. The emergence of partisan politics has eroded the US constitutional system, but no administration has ever reformed the mechanism. They all want to apply power to dominate the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Of the nine justices of the current court, two were nominated by former president Ronald Reagan, another two by Bill Clinton, three by Bush and two by Obama. As these justices have either a Democratic or Republican background, neither party is motivated to reform the system.

The partisan politics penetrates into US society more than generally assumed. Although this is often grumbled about by the public, the elites mostly benefit from the partisan politics. The two parties and their followers attack each other, but they all keep silent about the problems or make some superficial reflections occasionally.

Americans probably never think of grappling with partisan politics from the perspective of justice appointments. But the feud between Democrats and Republicans in the aftermath of Scalia's death has brought this to the forefront. All rules are made by humans and politics can always have an active influence. On this matter, even the US, a widely admired model of judicial independence, cannot consistently keep political motives out, as shown in the fight over Scalia's replacement.

This is an editorial of the Chinese edition of the Global Times on Wednesday. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn