>>> The smug little smirk that he gave after he made his joke was tasteless
>
>Tamar's point is that there's a broo-ha-ha that he shouldn't be appointing judges. E.g. Senate Majority Leader: "“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Alberto Gonzalez, former Bush attorney general: “From my perspective having worked at the White House and then at the Department of Justice, there’s just no question in my mind that as president of the United States, you have an obligation to fill a vacancy,”
>

If you would go back and read my replies, you'd see that I agree that he has the right (and the responsibility) to pick someone - and that the Senate has several options (choice on whether to exercise filibuster, whether or not to schedule up-or-down vote). It's silly...downright silly...for Rs to be saying that Obama shouldn't pick someone. However, over the last week I've lost count of the # of instances in the last 20 years where the Ds pulled the same antics on possible R nominations.

People seem to be confused about the Senate's constitutional responsibility. There have been over two dozen instances in US history where the Senate did not even take an up-or-down vote.

There is news that Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval (a moderate Republican) is being considered. Of course there are tons of rumors, but that name has been mentioned often in the last 2 days. Some think that kind of pick is will "out-smart" the Rs - I personally think it's a bit of an acknowledgement that HRC won't win in the fall, and/or the Rs will still hold the Senate. Therefore, a moderate R in the court now is better than risking a more serious R next year, should the Rs pull a clean sweep in November.

On Obama's smirk and attempt at a joke in this situation of an opening because of Scalia's death - I stand by my words. It was totally unprofessional and tasteless.