You are wrong, once again.
The Constitution requires that the President gets consent to his nominee, not that the Senate must give said consent.
The majority party is not the Senate. If they do try to disallow hearings and a vote the Republicans would be blocking the Senate from providing advice and consent as it has been understood for a hundred years.
But they’ll probably just try to drag their heels.
Former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed to the Court by President Reagan in 1981, says Obama should make the appointment: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/sandra-day-oconnor-obama-scalia-replacement/index.html.
Cruz and Rubio, big surprise, beg to differ.
It seems you’re conflating giving advice and consent with approving the nomination. Conducting hearings and voting down a nominee is giving advice as per the Constitution. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “neener neener neener can’t make me” is not.
As TPM notes this morning, a lot of conservative outside groups (including influential ones like FreedomWorks and Heritage Action) are leaning hard on the GOP Senators to not even consider any nomination by Obama. Their line is that the problem is Obama himself, so there’s no point in differentiating among possible Obama nominees.
I expect they will win the day, and there will be no hearings on any Obama nominee.
OK, maybe they’ll have some hearings in October, as cover for Republican Senators in blue and purple states, when it’s late enough that nothing will come of it. That’s about the most I’d expect.
Reagan and Clinton I never served in the Senate at all, so clearly they would have been abject failures as president.
Well we’ll see but I have to predict the other way. While they all have to play to the base to some degree I think holding hearings and voting against confirming is just the way to go. There’s still plenty of non-tea party members who want the general process to work. They don’t want to scrap the whole system. Refusing to confirm is just politics, refusing to allow a vote is tearing apart the foundations.
Here’s The Washington Post on how editorial cartoonists are dealing with the post-Scalia dispute: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/02/17/how-justice-scalias-death-got-politically-bitter-so-quickly-illustrated/?postshare=9671455804487300&tid=ss_mail
And here’s a law blogger on how the outcome of three major pending SCOTUS cases might be changed by Scalia’s death: Without Scalia, Supreme Court Could Tie in Three Major Cases | Brennan Center for Justice
(post shortened)
I believe it will depend on who Obama nominates. The majority of voters in many states may not like Obama’s selection and/or a liberal leaning SCOTUS. We the voters may chose to reward their sitting Senators for protecting the country from da-da-da-daaaaah, an asshole. Or not?
I’m not sure why you’d believe that, since the majority leader has already stated that he won’t put any nominee to a vote.
Or long careers as politicians e.g. governors. It’s more than making contacts in the Senate - it’s learning how to be a politician and how quid pro quo really works (which Obama has never learned). Someone else mentioned Reagan and Clinton. Those men were natural politicians and have an inherent instinct for the system. CF. them to Newt Gingrich who despite his years in the House never really understood how to politic in private or public.
Watch Godfather II and find a picture of Nancy Pelosi without makeup. All will become clear.
How could a year go by without voting up or down?
I’m not sure how the stonewalling is going to be accomplished for a year. So they vote someone down. A lot of people are going to demand that a new nominee be made and the process repeated. There is enough time for a few of these.
The President transmits his nomination to the Senate, there is no constitutional mechanism that requires them to respond at all. The Senate Majority leader decides what goes to the floor, so if he just decides to never schedule a vote, it’s not likely there will be one. Now, the Majority Leader isn’t all powerful, but you’d need people willing to go against him to usurp his authority in this matter and it’s not really that likely.
Lincoln won, Washington won, and Roosevelt won. Their SUPPORTERS along with military might helped them win. All were exceptional men performing exceptional acts. American exceptionalism at its finest.
Obama’s supporters seems to be of the opinion that Obama can’t get the job done. It’s already hopeless. I notice that the current poll numbers listed at the top of this thread show 76.64% believe Congress will be able to prevent an Obama nominated justice from being confirmed. Maybe they also believe that Obama simply doesn’t have the skillset to get this job done?
That’s just what he said today. Try again tomorrow. Try something else the day after that, and the day after that. Do you want people to think you’re a quitter? Or a Democrat? Tell Obama to ask Michelle for his balls back. Tell Obama to make an appearance at Scalia’s funeral (instead of playing basketball? or going golfing?). Tell Obama to act like the President of the UNITED States.
BUT what if Obama asks for the Senate’s advice on who to appoints (not that he ever would)? Would they be required to provide it?
So Mitch McConnell is a liar? Why would you carry water for someone you think is a liar? Perhaps you should tell him to act like a UNITED States Senator.
I feel like I’ve stumbled into the codebook routine from A Day at the Races. Can’t I just buy a decoder ring? 
Who, if anyone, approached McConnell with the idea of making such a public announcement? Maybe some news media outlet?