Could President Obama do as Sen. McConnell says and leave the SCOTUS nominations to the next President?
<p>The related question, <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/7189/could-the-president-abolish-the-supreme-court">Could the President abolish the Supreme Court?</a>, addresses the extreme situation, whether a President could realistically shirk his Constitutional duty to appoint new SCOTUS justices indefinitely until all sitting justices had died/retired, and by so doing indefinitely prevent the Court from hearing or deciding any cases.</p>

<p>This question is more narrow and more practical. With Scalia's death, Obama is seemingly bound by the Constitutional definition of his office under Article 2, Section 2 to appoint a replacement. However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that he believes the next President, not Obama in his lame-duck last year, should choose Scalia's successor, and has made it clear he intends to block the confirmation process of any Obama SCOTUS appointee any way he can. </p>

<p>The question is simple; does President Obama even have the option of not nominating a replacement, leaving that task to his successor as McConnell says he should, or does Article 2, Section 2 <em>require</em> him to at least put forth a nomination before he leaves office? Obama himself has said he does not believe he can do anything other than appoint someone.</p>

<p>Perhaps there is a date beyond which it would not be possible to do the work necessary to vet and nominate a candidate before the end of term for the President and Congress. However, we are clearly on the "there's still time" side of that line.</p>

constitutional-law us-supreme-court