U.S. Senate candidate Jon Keyser threw down a gauntlet in the crowded Republican primary field Thursday morning, saying he was the first of Colorado’s GOP primary candidate to say the next president should nominate a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and that any of his opponents who don’t agree “can’t be trusted to fight for our conservative principles in Washington.”

But some of Keyser’s primary opponents pushed back, saying the former state lawmaker was “fall[ing] into the trap of obstructionism” and engaging in “petty politics.”

The battle over whether President Barack Obama should name a replacement for Scalia, who died unexpectedly Saturday, has raged all week, with Obama vowing he’ll make a nomination and Senate Republicans saying they’ll wait until next year to consider filling the vacancy.

“Colorado needs a conservative leader in the Senate who isn’t afraid to clearly state their position on Justice Scalia’s replacement, and that’s why I’m proud to have been the first candidate to say the next president should be the one to nominate Justice Scalia’s replacement,” Keyser told The Colorado Statesman on Thursday. “It’s encouraging that other candidates have since followed my leadership, but there are still some who refuse to even take a position on this issue. I firmly believe that anyone in this race who is unwilling to say the next president should be the one to nominate Justice Scalia’s replacement isn’t a conservative and can’t be trusted to fight for our conservative principles in Washington.”

The leading Republicans running to challenge Democratic U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet have staked out various positions on the Scalia vacancy.

“The Senate should fulfill its constitutional obligation without letting partisan politics intervene,” Bennet said in a statement Monday. “When the president nominates someone, that person should get a full and fair review.”

That’s in sharp contrast to a statement issued soon after news of Scalia’s death broke Saturday by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Keyser, Colorado Springs business consultant Robert Blaha and El Paso County Commissioner Darryl Glenn have said that the next president should make the nomination, although Keyser and Blaha dispute who said it first.

“A vigorous debate will shortly follow regarding his replacement. That outcome will shape American jurisprudence for decades to come,” Blaha wrote at 4:45 p.m. Saturday in a Facebook post. “There’s no way we should allow this president another Supreme Court nomination.”

“Justice Scalia’s replacement should live up to his legacy as a strict constitutionalist and should be nominated by the next president of the United States,” the Keyser campaign said in a statement issued three hours later.

A spokesman for the Keyser campaign maintains that Blaha’s statement was imprecise and didn’t say the next president should name Scalia’s replacement, merely that Obama shouldn’t have another justice confirmed.

The Blaha camp took exception to that conclusion Thursday.

“Our Facebook post went up when it went up,” Blaha told The Statesman Thursday. “The facts are clear.”

Blaha campaign communications director Rachel Keane went further: “You can check the times on the pages, it’s obvious who spoke first. Leadership isn’t about petty politics.”

Former CSU athletic director Jack Graham told The Statesman on Tuesday that he believes Obama should make a nomination and the Senate should reject any nominee who doesn’t reflect Scalia’s conservative interpretation of the Constitution.

Thursday morning, Graham campaign manager Dick Wadhams rejected the Keyser campaign’s proposition.

“Jack Graham has been very clear,” Wadhams told The Statesman. “Justice Scalia’s replacement should reflect Justice Scalia’s constitutional conservatism. But he has also made it clear that the Senate has a responsibility to consider any nomination that President Obama puts forward. But the Senate also has an ability to reject any nomination President Obama puts forward.”

“If others want to fall into the trap of obstructionism, let them go for it,” Wadhams added. “Considering a nominee is different from approving a nominee. We should not be afraid of that debate. Senate Republicans should not be afraid to have this opportunity for Republicans to lay out their conservative principles in that debate. But those who want to embark on mere obstruction are falling into the trap that Obama and Senate Democrats are trying to lay.”

State Sen. Tim Neville, R-Littleton, said on Saturday that the Senate has the final say and “whether it happens now or after the next election, the Republican Senate majority needs to stand strong and only confirm a nominee that will stand firm in defense of the Constitution.” His campaign didn’t return a request for comment Thursday morning.

Former Aurora Councilman Ryan Frazier said on Saturday that it was time to allow Scalia’s friends, family and supporters time to grieve “before we begin the rigorous process of naming and confirming the next high court justice.”

Frazier told The Statesman Thursday that it was up to Obama to nominate a justice who promotes “the values of strict constitutional jurisprudence” rather than attempt to “score cheap partisan points during an election year.”

“Coloradans and the majority of Americans want checks and balances and leaders that can work within our constitutional framework of divided government,” Frazier said. “Let’s focus less on the establishment partisanship and push more for the president to nominate someone who the Republican-led Senate can actually approve. What we don’t need is the president to nominate someone he knows will not promote the values of strict constitutional jurisprudence from the bench to score cheap partisan points during an election year. At the end of the day, the U.S. Senate has the right to approve nominations. The president should acknowledge that and act in a fashion that matches his rhetoric of post-partisanship governance.”

— ernest@coloradostatesman.com