The simple answer is that Obama can do what the constitution says he can do. He can nominate.
The Senate gets to advise and consent, but it looks like Obama isn’t taking anyone’s advice on whom to nominate.
The Senate can consent or not consent. They should non-consent on anyone who is not a jurist in the tradition of Antonin Scalia.
They, too, are doing their constitutional job just as it’s written in the Constitution.
Nothing is written that says they must approve a nominee. History is littered with nominees who have been disapproved.
The pitcher has to pitch the ball. The umpire has to call the balls and strikes. Just because he pitches the ball does not mean he gets a strike.
Sure. They have every right to do that. Actually, they took an oath to do that.
They can give or not give their consent for ANY reason they choose. If they want a Scalia, they can wait for a Scalia. If oboma chooses a Scalia, they can bring it up for a vote. Otherwise, they can just wait it out.
Chuck Schumer didn't want Bush to appoint anyone for anything because he only had 18 months left to his presidency. Now, oboma only has 11 months. Why not use the democrats own rules against them? Wouldn't that be the "fair" thing to do?
He’s putting all the pressure he can on McConnell.