Partisans, it’s time to line up! Democrats to the left, Republicans to the right. Barack Obama has to nominate a new Supreme Court justice.

An April 12 article in The New York Times makes note of just how difficult the confirmation process will be for whomever President Obama nominates to fill Justice John Paul Stevens’ seat on the bench.

After the president nominates someone to a position such as this, the Senate must hold hearings and decide whether or not to confirm the nomination. Because Congress has become particularly polarized in recent years, this can be a messy process full of political maneuvering to avoid confirming a candidate deemed too radical by the opposing party.

During the Senate’s confirmation hearings, everything the nominee has said or done is fair game for scrutiny. Every judicial opinion, every written word, every action taken is up for debate. It’s an incredibly invasive process. But what good does this extensive research do?

Yes, it’s true that reading published works of whomever the president nominates is important to get an understanding of his or her competence. It can also show the general direction one is going to take the agency she or he has been appointed head of ‘ in this case, the Supreme Court. However, it becomes problematic when the candidate’s personal history enters the equation. Sexual history or orientation, for example, is completely beside the point.

There’s a reason the founders gave the president, not the Senate, the power to appoint Supreme Court justices. It’s right there in the Constitution: The president has not only the right, but also the duty to appoint someone he deems worthy of the position.

President Obama was elected by an overwhelming majority, so it can be inferred that a majority of the country agrees with his policies. In addition, the Americans elected a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. Why, then, would people argue against nominating someone to the Supreme Court who holds similar views? It’s as if people are arguing that the views of the majority shouldn’t be represented in those nominated to the bench. This is a completely absurd proposition in a democracy such as ours.

The purpose of Senate approval of presidential appointees is to ensure the president isn’t simply giving his friends positions of power in exchange for support, and that these candidates are actually capable of doing the job they’ve been selected to do. It isn’t for the Senate to decide if the political or judicial opinions of the appointed agree with their own ideologies.

Essentially, the Senate is behaving like a group of children, angry that they didn’t get the new toy they wanted.

If the Founding Fathers wanted Congress to appoint Supreme Court justices, they would have given them that power. Instead, they gave it to the president. The Senate got the job of approving presidential nominees as a check to make sure the candidates were qualified. It’s time for America’s elected representatives to start acting their age and deal with the hand they’ve been dealt.