[oldalum]

am I the only one who finds it hypocritical for politicians and pundits to praise Scalia to high heaven for his fanatical adherence to textual interpretation of the Constitution, and then call for Obama to defer any S.C. nomination to the next president so that the "people" can choose? The goal of Scalia's analysis is to discern from the text what was the intent of the framers. The text of the constitution says nothing about lame duck year appointments. If the framers thought it would be advisable to defer lame duck year appointments to the next president, they knew how to write in that language, but they didn't. The constitution clearly intends lame duck appointments to be made. I see no text-based argument to the contrary. So the argument for deferring to the next president is simply, I think it would be a good idea even though there is nothing in the constitution to support it; to which Obama should (and will reply), thank you for your expressing your opinion, here is my decision.

[oldalum]

am I the only one who finds it hypocritical for politicians and pundits to praise Scalia to high heaven for his fanatical adherence to textual interpretation of the Constitution, and then call for Obama to defer any S.C. nomination to the next president so that the "people" can choose? The goal of Scalia's analysis is to discern from the text what was the intent of the framers. The text of the constitution says nothing about lame duck year appointments. If the framers thought it would be advisable to defer lame duck year appointments to the next president, they knew how to write in that language, but they didn't. The constitution clearly intends lame duck appointments to be made. I see no text-based argument to the contrary. So the argument for deferring to the next president is simply, I think it would be a good idea even though there is nothing in the constitution to support it; to which Obama should (and will reply), thank you for your expressing your opinion, here is my decision.