Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Americans say by 2-to-1 that Senate should hold hearings on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee [View all]sofa king
(10,857 posts)Don't think for a moment that the former senior lecturer on Constitutional law has failed to notice that the Constitution (Article II, Section 2) does not give him a choice in the matter:
... and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court...
The Senate is free to obstruct by not consenting to the nominee, but the President is not given any leeway in the matter. He SHALL nominate someone, and "shall" is not a discretionary word.
However, there is no time limit, so it may be to the President's advantage to let the Republicans play out enough rope over the matter that it hangs 'em in November. Then he can present his nominee to the new (hopefully Democratically-controlled) Senate in January.
This sort of move, using his opponents' vile behavior to win advantages for himself, is President Obama's trademark move, and I expect him to do it, or something more clever than I can envision.