>>He didn't mention the Supreme Court or anyone by name. He said "appointing judges." Aside from that, in the context of the current dispute, where the Republicans in the Senate are claiming he doesn't have the right to appoint them any more, I think it's a perfectly reasonable comment.
>>
>
>Tamar,
>
>First, we all know what he was referring to. The smug little smirk that he gave after he made his joke was tasteless. Imagine if a right-wing radio broadcaster made a joke about any aftermath of the deaths of Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin....
>
>Second, I don't believe anyone in the Senate has said Obama doesn't have the right (he certainly has a constitutional right, as well as an obligation, to make a nomination). If they did indeed use those words (that he doesn't have the right), they are incorrect.
>
>There have been political statements by McConnell and Cruz (and others) about whether a president in such a lame duck status *should* be nominating someone. That is different than having a "right"....though regardless, I disagree with McConnell/Cruz.

He's not in lame duck status. That's when the new president has been elected, but has not taken office yet.

>Having said that, the president and many Democrats are wrong on the responsibilities of the Senate. The Senate has no constitutional obligation to take an up-and-down vote. The Senate is free to decide whether to consider a president's judicial nomination.

Actually they do. It's says 'the president SHALL appoint someone, and the senate SHALL consider the nomination'. Doesn't say they shall IF they feel like it.

>(My personal opinion - if the President indeed nominates someone, I do think the Senate "should" consider it and take a vote....but let's be clear, the Senate has no constitutional obligation to consider any nomination from Obama)

...but they do.

>One final point...Democrats have recently been saying, "Obama was elected for four years...which means he can make nominations at any point in the four years".. That's certainly true. What's also true is that Democrats really go overboard in trying to protect the president from criticism during an election year. I remember Democrats saying in fall of 2012 (in response to Benghazi)..."we will find out what happened in Benghazi....but AFTER the election". The hypocrisy there is huge. They can't have it both ways.

Both sides of the isle have said things like this over the years. However, the GOP has been in obstructing mode for a long time - if you take a look at the federal judge nominations you'll find that the republicans just won't do squat. When you get Senators saying they won't do their job no matter what because they just don't like Obama, it hurts everyone. I'm sure Obama could nominate someone that everyone likes - but the senators are not going to do their job as some of them have said no matter who he nominates they're not going to approve. With all the upcoming HUGE cases the supreme court is scheduled to hear it's just a ploy by the GOP to rig the system so that there are only 8 not 9 justices, because if they vote in a tie then it doesn't effect the nation as a whole.. Bunch of freakn dritbags.