Once we control the White House and the Senate, perhaps we need to establish a rule

[question everything]

for a cutoff of when a supreme court vacancy should be filled.

Nine month before the next inauguration? Six month?

[StClone]

1. And limitations of pardon powers.

[Under The Radar]

2. The rule in place first written by Janes Madison

The president has the duty to nominate and the senate has the duty to confirm. It should have been fought by a Obama, taken to the court then.
At any time the president has the duty to nominate.

[OAITW r.2.0]

5. So why didn't he fight?

I think he made a calculation to not make this an election year issue and Hillary would win. Obviously, the electoral college voided Hillary's popular vote win.

Being the dickhead that McConnell is, he would have held up Hillary's SC nominations as well.

But I think more and more Americans are realizing that the McConnell Senate is where the real abuse of power is happening. They did acquit the current occupant who was impeached in the House. They are active partners in Trumps bid to turn the US into a Single Party Country....just like Russia, just like China, and many other 3rd world Republican shitholes.

[FBaggins]

7. Because he would have lost

There is no "duty to confirm". One could argue that there was a duty to at least vote on a nominee, but that standard had already been violated.

None of this is an actual legal problem. They're just exercises (or abuses depending on whose ox is gored) of political power. The complaining is not intended to result in legal consequences but political ones. The argument isn't that they can't do it... but that they shouldn't.

[Under The Radar]

8. Correct, McConnell is the devil himself

Obama was the consummate moderate, non confrontational and yes just knew Hilary was going to win.

[beachbumbob]

3. a rule is a rule and always be changed

[genxlib]

4. No way

With our luck, it would just make us miss out on our next opportunity.

[TeamPooka]

6. It's called "amending the Constitution."