Today's Poll: Should Obama nominate a new Supreme Court justice?

Again. Answer depends on how one feels about it.

Just found a neat little tidbit, mis-titled http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/02/22/video-biden-urges-oba…

Though the "title" alludes to Biden urging Obama, it REALLY is a video, from 1992, showing then-senator Joe Biden, urging then-president George HW Bush to NOT propose a Supreme Court nominee UNTIL the election process was over (back then).

Video from back then is interesting, but, the text from Senator Biden's video (for those not wanting/unable to watch it, started out as "It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed. The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination,the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over...
?..It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over...Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation wouldhave to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President

I wonder what "Uncle Joe" is urging President Obama to do, now that the "shoe is on the other foot".

Probably something along the lines of, "I can't believe we can "F'in" do this!"
(Biden's known for those obsenity-laced one-liners. Remember?)

But, Hey. Just as in yesterday's poll, the American rules allow the president to nominate someone, if he wishes to do so. And, the U.S. Senate can approve/disapprove whomever is nominated. Like it or not, THOSE are the rules.

It's part of his job.

He's divided this country enough already!

@David Horning, What?!?! He's divided the country enough?

How about your boy Mitch McConnell, who announced in the first weeks of Obama's presidency that the mission of the republicans would be to defeat the President's initiatives at every turn. And that's not divisive??

This is what I love about the republican party; they say they want to govern but in reality all they want to do is WIN. They don't give a crap about compromise and governing....all they care about is their agenda.
And now apparently they are the party of donald trump (and no I won't capitalize this moron's name). God help us all.
#lemmings

The President's duty is to nominate a Justice. the Senate's duty is to advise and consent, not say f*** you before a nominee is even presented.

Both parties have played the game of "not now, wait," and both parties have been dead wrong about it. What is most frustrating is the moronic "the people deserve a voice" argument. The people DID have a choice, and THEY CHOSE PRESIDENT OBAMA....TWICE.

This is another instance of "the people" meaning "only people like ME" - which fails the (small 'd') democratic principles this country was founded on.