A non violent process through which differences are settled, ideally with at least a veil of integrity, or you’re likely to get the violence it was aimed to prevent.
That's not helpful. There are "rules", and there are "norms".
People follow the rules assuming that everyone is operating in good faith, and that everyone agrees the rules exist for the benefit of everyone. If rules are only there to be exploited, you end up with a disaster.
I mean, sure, you can force through a nomination now and produce a wildly lopsided court. But then the democrats might just win the senate and presidency and decide that they can add four more justices. The rules allow that, too. Is that the world you want to live in?
> It’s not fascism to do things the way the rules/law specifies.
That's not a workable definition. At many points in history fascists were literally the ones writing the rules and laws.
Also, it's not like the law is software proved with formal methods to prevent fascism. There are bugs and exploits that are only prevented from being problems by the integrity of political actors, and some of those can be pretty trivially discovered. The more integrity you remove, the higher the chance you end up with a configuration that results in something like fascism.
You attempt to prevent a literal war of all against all by making various alliances and deals that please all but all small rump of violent extremists.
What exactly do you think politics is?