The death of Antonin Scalia created a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court at a politically fraught moment — the middle of a presidential campaign, and its outcome is impossible to predict. It has left Washington in one of those immovable standoffs between the president and Congress that offers no hope of a compromise.

President Barack Obama says he intends to nominate a successor to Scalia, in keeping with his constitutional obligation. Senate Republicans say he should abstain and leave the selection to the next president, allowing voters to decide who should be entrusted with this fateful appointment.

What makes the fight particularly intense is that replacing the very conservative Scalia with a liberal could determine the outcomes of many vital cases — on gun rights, campaign finance, abortion and more. Democrats want to install their sort of justice while they still have the White House. Republicans hope to put the appointment off until next year in the hope that it will be made by a Republican president.

Republican Leader Mitch McConnell says the Senate will provide any nominee with no confirmation hearings, no votes. Obama insists that the Senate has a duty to “move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the court can continue to serve the American people at full strength.” Each side claims that history, tradition and common sense support its position, and neither is backing down.

Yes, we’re aware that each party has played the opposite role when the power positions were reversed. If this spat, too, strikes you as a fight over politics disguised as a fight over constitutional principles — Just tell me your party affiliation so I know where you stand on this — then you’re more than a little right.

May we suggest that there is a middle ground? Obama is entitled to name a replacement — and the Senate is entitled to hold hearings, argue over the nomination and accept or reject it. The senators’ constitutional responsibility is to “advise and consent,” and that task includes the right to say: “The people of our states have given us the power to confirm judicial appointees, and this one will not do.”

What’s the downside of affording Obama’s candidate the full treatment before deciding his or her fate? The GOP believes the American people want a court that will follow a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, allow state restrictions on abortion facilities, curb affirmative action and protect employers with religious objections from having to participate in the provision of contraceptives to their employees. Obama would prefer that the justices rule differently on those issues — which means that whoever he chooses is not likely to satisfy the concerns of Republican senators.

But there’s no harm in conducting a full review of the nominee’s record and subjecting him or her to hours of questioning about constitutional and legal issues. In fact, it could illuminate the importance, as the GOP sees it, of ensuring that any seats that open up during the next administration are filled by a Republican president.

Stonewalling, by contrast, makes McConnell & Co. look mulish, to the advantage of Obama & Co. “Democratic aides privately delighted over the prospect of cameras capturing a qualified nominee being turned away from the offices of top Republican leaders,” the Washington Post reports. “They noted that no previous Supreme Court nominee has been denied a Senate hearing.”

And who knows? If Obama knew his choice would get a normal review, he might select someone with a chance of winning over enough Republican senators to be confirmed. He might meet the opposition part way. The court, both parties and the country might come out ahead.

So the Senate should welcome a nomination, undertake a complete assessment of that person, and then make a decision that the American people can understand. Vote yes or vote no, but vote.