>>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.
>
>
>Victor, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."

I know what it says...
2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; 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, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

>The president nominates someone. If the Senate gives advice and consent, then Obama can appoint him.
>
>But you won't find a single word in the Constitution that says the Senate is required to act on Obama's nomination.....not a single word stating that the Senate bore such an obligation to take an up-or-down vote.

The job of the Senate is to...ya know .. VOTE ON THINGS! If they do not - then they're not performing the obligations of their job.

>Some history: U.S. Presidents have made 160 Supreme court nominations. The Senate confirmed 124 of them. Of the 36 that failed, 25 of them never even received an up-or-down vote. So the Senate has options to govern the advice-and-consent process (whether to filibuster, whether to take an up-or-down vote, etc.).
>
>My personal opinion: the Senate should do "something". But let's be clear on what the Constitution says. It's the difference between good political science and dabbling.

Ironic that all this comes up as a result of Antonin Scalia's death - as he was a constitutionalist. But do you really think the framers of the constitution created this methodology of appointing judges with the intent that the senate wouldn't do anything? It's one of those form vs function things of the law. I suppose I do agree with you though - Obama should appoint someone and the Senate should evaluate and vote.
Like I said before - both sides of the isle have done this before. As matter of fact didn't Obama threaten to filibuster one of Bush's nominations once? You can spend 3 minutes looking and find plenty of video's of republicans saying one thing, and now that Obama is supposed to appoint someone they say the complete opposite. And it's not just the republicans - the dems have done the exact same thing. But this crap where they say they won't vote for whoever he appoints no matter what? that is real jackass move that hurts everyone.