Should the nomination for a new Supreme Court justice be delayed until after the presidential election?

I hate Obama, but I believe he has the right to nominate and I believe that theS Senate has the right to not con firm the nominee like Obama filibustered Alito with 18 months not go in the administration along with Shumer and the others liberals who seek to only use the constitution when it's convenient to their fulfilling their ideology.

It is not a question if he "should be able". It is his Constitutional duty as the POTUS to do so. If it were the other way around, a lame duck conservative in office, would you still have the same opinion?

I don't see so many individuals "hating" the man, so much as feeling like the policies run counter to their own. However, you are right that this president was elected, twice, to this office, and has every right to nominate a candidate. And the Senate can either take up the hearing, or not, as is their right to do so. You will find precedent from both political parties to either confirm, ignore, or reject that candidate. That said, you seem to insinuate that race is involved, which therefore makes you part of a problem that shouldn't exist. That said, show me where the Constitution says that the Senate MUST have a hearing, or where they MUST have a vote. I can't find it.

Nothing in the Constitution says that the Senate must approve the nomination. There's plenty of precedent where the Dems refused to approve the Republican President's nominations. But when the shoe is on the other foot, they cry and whine and complain like babies. They are disgusting.

Is that a fact sir, or just another right wing conservative conspiracy theory?

Chuck Schumer was full of crap too, like most all other politicians who are more loyal to their party and its ideology and agenda than to the Constitution and the American People.

What is the resolution of 1960?

Both the left and the right are full of crap. They are ruining our country because they are in a war with each other rather than working together as Americans and doing what is best for our nation and its people.

I agree. The President has done a terrible job at everything else, why would he nominate a good judge!!! I hope the Senate holds back until we get a good GOP President.

Because the only place Hillary is headed for is either jail, or back to Chappaqua with Monica's ex boyfriend. As far as Bernie, it's either a straight jacket or a free ticket to the planet utopia.

Because I'm leaning towards conservatives

I'd bet my life savings that ain't gonna happen! I'll take my chances. This Supreme court is already far to liberal.
People have lost their homes to governments that have condemned their property and given it to developers who will pay higher taxes and this court has sanctioned that BS.

funny anonymous, I was thinking the same thing about.

The basic definition of "corruption" is when an individual, group, or faction has established a means in which to control the outcome of their will for benefit or gain. It is power that was not earned, but rather manipulated through the very system that was intended to prevent it. It is nearly impossible for president, senator, or congressman to get elected without the backing and support of a political party. Once that person becomes is elected to office, they become a puppet for the party that helped get them elected. The constituents that provided the winning votes are no longer the primary concern for them, it is their party, PACs, and special interest groups. Hello, the AL and VFW are slowly losing it's clout with its aging and dying membership, and both parties are happy for it. They are all anticipating the time when they no longer have to listen to vets from wars that happened 50-75 years ago. Instead of taking one side which contributes to the problem of partisanship, how about taking a stand against it?

There just may be a possibility that he nominates a judge who has previously been accepted/confirmed by both parties for nominations to lower courts.

The president is the president until the next one is sworn in. There is nothing that says the president's executive powers are limited in the final year of the final term. He got elected twice, so obviously the majority voted for their best interests.

The Koch brothers? Really? What about the Democrats refusing to entertain any judicial appointments of GW Bush during his last year and a half, led by Schumer, who now is ranting and raving that Obama has a "right" to his choice. Bunk! This close to a presidential election calls for the people having the right to be heard on which way the Supreme Court is going to lean through an election scheduled for a little over 8 months from now. Read the Constitution. The Senate has the right via the Constitution to wait, and many of us feel in view of the disastrous Obama administration for the past 7 year, the DUTY as well. Legal scholars who are honest agree.

Justice Kennedy's confirmation had been held up for a couple of years by the Democrats, so it is not the same situation.

Theresa.
I would hope you are an intelligent enough person to realize the folks that post on blogs are a very small percentage of the true membership. I even question you as why would you even be logging on a American Legion web site and participating in a poll unless your just a trouble maker and wanted to lash out at a Veterans group. I would also question your eligibility to even belong to this family of veterans. I hope my feelings about you are wrong.

I feel that the president can nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court but I also feel the Senate should delay until after a new president is elected. This is just my opinion.
Please remember that all of us in the United States still have our 1st Amendment rights to speak our mind and if someone says something that you don't like to hear, its still their right to say it. Your choice is to move on with your life or only listen to folks that have your identical way of thinking. Please don't be an ostrich with your head in the sand.