Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[Faun]

He will nominate someone and the GOP need to understand that they need to fill that vacancy before November or it will look bad on their part for being too Partisan and Hostile.

Just fill the vacancy and pick another battle to stand your ground on.

========

The Republican Party is 100% in violation of the Constitution in demanding that Obama wait and not nominate a replacement until after the election in order for them to have ANOTHER chance at getting a Republican President WHO ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

Their job is to consider Obama's nominees by way of advise and consent. When Republicans announced they would not do that, they revealed they were prepared to violate their oath of office to support the Constitution and discharge the duties to their office.

 

[Arizona Willie]

He will nominate someone and the GOP need to understand that they need to fill that vacancy before November or it will look bad on their part for being too Partisan and Hostile.

Just fill the vacancy and pick another battle to stand your ground on.

========

The Republican Party is 100% in violation of the Constitution in demanding that Obama wait and not nominate a replacement until after the election in order for them to have ANOTHER chance at getting a Republican President WHO ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

Sure, he could do exactly that if he wanted to show the people just how desperate he is to get another justice appointed and how scared he is that the next president will be a Republican. He does have quite the large ego.
========
And the Republicans are doing exactly what you claim Obama would be doing. Showing how afraid they are that another Democrat will be elected and trying to force him to nominate an Ultra-Conservative before the election and saying they will deny any other nominee.

They are deperate to FORCE their way on the country.
========

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

There is no Constitutional requirement for a Senator to approve ANY nominee. I will state confidently that a Senator could go an entire career and NEVER vote to confirm a single appointee. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please post it.

 

[hadit]

He will nominate someone and the GOP need to understand that they need to fill that vacancy before November or it will look bad on their part for being too Partisan and Hostile.

Just fill the vacancy and pick another battle to stand your ground on.

========

The Republican Party is 100% in violation of the Constitution in demanding that Obama wait and not nominate a replacement until after the election in order for them to have ANOTHER chance at getting a Republican President WHO ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

Sure, he could do exactly that if he wanted to show the people just how desperate he is to get another justice appointed and how scared he is that the next president will be a Republican. He does have quite the large ego.
========
And the Republicans are doing exactly what you claim Obama would be doing. Showing how afraid they are that another Democrat will be elected and trying to force him to nominate an Ultra-Conservative before the election and saying they will deny any other nominee.

They are deperate to FORCE their way on the country.
========

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

There is no Constitutional requirement for a Senator to approve ANY nominee. I will state confidently that a Senator could go an entire career and NEVER vote to confirm a single appointee. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please post it.

So, no evidence then?

 

[Arizona Willie]

He will nominate someone and the GOP need to understand that they need to fill that vacancy before November or it will look bad on their part for being too Partisan and Hostile.

Just fill the vacancy and pick another battle to stand your ground on.

========

The Republican Party is 100% in violation of the Constitution in demanding that Obama wait and not nominate a replacement until after the election in order for them to have ANOTHER chance at getting a Republican President WHO ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

Bullshit, there is no constitutional mandate that the senate must vote on or approve any nominee. Just as there was no constitutional mandate that required Reid to call a vote on the 300+ house passed bills that he sat on for years.

Schumer said the exact same thing about Bush nominees and you liberfools praised him for it. you are the biggest hypocrites on earth.

========
Gawd are you ignorant.

It IS written in the Constitution that the President has the DUTY to nominate a replacement Justice and the Senate ADVISES AND CONFIRMS. Right now they are giving him advice ( bad advice ) telling him to not nominate ANYONE because hey will deny his nominees and saying he should wait until after the next election so they GET ANOTHER CHANCE TO PUT A CONSERVATIVE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO WILL ABSOLUTELY NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

 

[Faun]

....and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees...

Please show the part of the constitution which states they have to approve nominees or are required to do this according to a time frame.

Replacing a SC justice requires the president and the Senate. Some Republicans have declared they will not participate in that process.

If they go through with that, it will be unprecedented.

 

[Faun]

He will nominate someone and the GOP need to understand that they need to fill that vacancy before November or it will look bad on their part for being too Partisan and Hostile.

Just fill the vacancy and pick another battle to stand your ground on.

========

The Republican Party is 100% in violation of the Constitution in demanding that Obama wait and not nominate a replacement until after the election in order for them to have ANOTHER chance at getting a Republican President WHO ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

Sure, he could do exactly that if he wanted to show the people just how desperate he is to get another justice appointed and how scared he is that the next president will be a Republican. He does have quite the large ego.

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

There is no Constitutional requirement for a Senator to approve ANY nominee. I will state confidently that a Senator could go an entire career and NEVER vote to confirm a single appointee. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please post it.

Desperate? That's his job.

 

[Arizona Willie]

....and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees...

Please show the part of the constitution which states they have to approve nominees or are required to do this according to a time frame.

Replacing a SC justice requires the president and the Senate. Some Republicans have declared they will not participate in that process.

If they go through with that, it will be unprecedented.

========
And they will be voted out of office because America is SICK AND TIRED of Republican Obstructionism.

 

[Faun]

He will nominate someone and the GOP need to understand that they need to fill that vacancy before November or it will look bad on their part for being too Partisan and Hostile.

Just fill the vacancy and pick another battle to stand your ground on.

========

The Republican Party is 100% in violation of the Constitution in demanding that Obama wait and not nominate a replacement until after the election in order for them to have ANOTHER chance at getting a Republican President WHO ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

Bullshit, there is no constitutional mandate that the senate must vote on or approve any nominee. Just as there was no constitutional mandate that required Reid to call a vote on the 300+ house passed bills that he sat on for years.

Schumer said the exact same thing about Bush nominees and you liberfools praised him for it. you are the biggest hypocrites on earth.

Vomits the liar who falsely claimed there were Democrats who supported Schumer.

 

[hadit]

He will nominate someone and the GOP need to understand that they need to fill that vacancy before November or it will look bad on their part for being too Partisan and Hostile.

Just fill the vacancy and pick another battle to stand your ground on.

========

The Republican Party is 100% in violation of the Constitution in demanding that Obama wait and not nominate a replacement until after the election in order for them to have ANOTHER chance at getting a Republican President WHO ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

Bullshit, there is no constitutional mandate that the senate must vote on or approve any nominee. Just as there was no constitutional mandate that required Reid to call a vote on the 300+ house passed bills that he sat on for years.

Schumer said the exact same thing about Bush nominees and you liberfools praised him for it. you are the biggest hypocrites on earth.

========
Gawd are you ignorant.

It IS written in the Constitution that the President has the DUTY to nominate a replacement Justice and the Senate ADVISES AND CONFIRMS. Right now they are giving him advice ( bad advice ) telling him to not nominate ANYONE because hey will deny his nominees and saying he should wait until after the next election so they GET ANOTHER CHANCE TO PUT A CONSERVATIVE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO WILL ABSOLUTELY NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

They don't have to confirm anyone they don't want to confirm. Heck, if you listen to the democrats of GW's day, they don't even have to hold hearing or votes. What I said is true, a Senator can go an entire career voting to reject, not confirm, every single appointee and not violate the Constitution.

 

[nat4900]

lease show the part of the constitution which states they have to approve nominees or are required to do this according to a time frame.

Certainly the Constitution does not state that senators need to APPROVE anyone.....however, a time frame is implied....Even the position description for someone hired by Wendy's does not have to specifically state that it shouldn't take 4 or 6 hours to serve a hamburger.

 

[hadit]

He will nominate someone and the GOP need to understand that they need to fill that vacancy before November or it will look bad on their part for being too Partisan and Hostile.

Just fill the vacancy and pick another battle to stand your ground on.

========

The Republican Party is 100% in violation of the Constitution in demanding that Obama wait and not nominate a replacement until after the election in order for them to have ANOTHER chance at getting a Republican President WHO ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

Sure, he could do exactly that if he wanted to show the people just how desperate he is to get another justice appointed and how scared he is that the next president will be a Republican. He does have quite the large ego.

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

There is no Constitutional requirement for a Senator to approve ANY nominee. I will state confidently that a Senator could go an entire career and NEVER vote to confirm a single appointee. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please post it.

Desperate? That's his job.

It's his job to nominate, that's pretty much the extent of it. If Congress doesn't want to play ball, it's on them.

 

[nat4900]

Was the will of the American people observed when Judge Bork was nominated?

YES !!!! (unless the entire country has turned racist and fascist)

 

[Faun]

========

The Republican Party is 100% in violation of the Constitution in demanding that Obama wait and not nominate a replacement until after the election in order for them to have ANOTHER chance at getting a Republican President WHO ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

Bullshit, there is no constitutional mandate that the senate must vote on or approve any nominee. Just as there was no constitutional mandate that required Reid to call a vote on the 300+ house passed bills that he sat on for years.

Schumer said the exact same thing about Bush nominees and you liberfools praised him for it. you are the biggest hypocrites on earth.

========
Gawd are you ignorant.

It IS written in the Constitution that the President has the DUTY to nominate a replacement Justice and the Senate ADVISES AND CONFIRMS. Right now they are giving him advice ( bad advice ) telling him to not nominate ANYONE because hey will deny his nominees and saying he should wait until after the next election so they GET ANOTHER CHANCE TO PUT A CONSERVATIVE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO WILL ABSOLUTELY NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

They don't have to confirm anyone they don't want to confirm. Heck, if you listen to the democrats of GW's day, they don't even have to hold hearing or votes. What I said is true, a Senator can go an entire career voting to reject, not confirm, every single appointee and not violate the Constitution.

And there's your confusion. This isn't about voting to reject. This is about refusing to vote.

 

[nat4900]

This isn't about voting to reject. This is about refusing to vote.

The above simple statement somehow escapes right wingers......McConnell and those 24 republican senators up for reelection are FULLY aware of the negative spectacle that their sitting on their arses would create for voters (especially independent ones.)

 

[Faun]

========

The Republican Party is 100% in violation of the Constitution in demanding that Obama wait and not nominate a replacement until after the election in order for them to have ANOTHER chance at getting a Republican President WHO ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

Sure, he could do exactly that if he wanted to show the people just how desperate he is to get another justice appointed and how scared he is that the next president will be a Republican. He does have quite the large ego.

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

There is no Constitutional requirement for a Senator to approve ANY nominee. I will state confidently that a Senator could go an entire career and NEVER vote to confirm a single appointee. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please post it.

Desperate? That's his job.

It's his job to nominate, that's pretty much the extent of it. If Congress doesn't want to play ball, it's on them.

Yes, it's on them -- to neglect their Constitutional responsibilities.

How do you think that will play out with the electorate?

Keep in mind, a poll of likely voters has already come out indicating that my a margin of 58% to 21%, respondents feel the Senate should vote on every nominee put up by the president.

 

[hadit]

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

Bullshit, there is no constitutional mandate that the senate must vote on or approve any nominee. Just as there was no constitutional mandate that required Reid to call a vote on the 300+ house passed bills that he sat on for years.

Schumer said the exact same thing about Bush nominees and you liberfools praised him for it. you are the biggest hypocrites on earth.

========
Gawd are you ignorant.

It IS written in the Constitution that the President has the DUTY to nominate a replacement Justice and the Senate ADVISES AND CONFIRMS. Right now they are giving him advice ( bad advice ) telling him to not nominate ANYONE because hey will deny his nominees and saying he should wait until after the next election so they GET ANOTHER CHANCE TO PUT A CONSERVATIVE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO WILL ABSOLUTELY NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

They don't have to confirm anyone they don't want to confirm. Heck, if you listen to the democrats of GW's day, they don't even have to hold hearing or votes. What I said is true, a Senator can go an entire career voting to reject, not confirm, every single appointee and not violate the Constitution.

And there's your confusion. This isn't about voting to reject. This is about refusing to vote.

Perhaps I have not explained my position. Hearings SHOULD be held, and votes SHOULD be taken. It ticked me off when democrats blocked hearings and votes on Bush's minority picks to the bench, and Republicans shouldn't do it either. If they have the votes to reject, they should hold the votes and reject them. I also firmly believe the Republican leadership will cave to Obama again, as they have always done in the past.

 

[hadit]

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

Sure, he could do exactly that if he wanted to show the people just how desperate he is to get another justice appointed and how scared he is that the next president will be a Republican. He does have quite the large ego.

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

There is no Constitutional requirement for a Senator to approve ANY nominee. I will state confidently that a Senator could go an entire career and NEVER vote to confirm a single appointee. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please post it.

Desperate? That's his job.

It's his job to nominate, that's pretty much the extent of it. If Congress doesn't want to play ball, it's on them.

Yes, it's on them -- to neglect their Constitutional responsibilities.

How do you think that will play out with the electorate?

Keep in mind, a poll of likely voters has already come out indicating that my a margin of 58% to 21%, respondents feel the Senate should vote on every nominee put up by the president.

They'll hold votes. They're not like the democrats of GW's day, who used the filibuster to prevent votes on his picks. In fact, they're so squishy the'll probably give Obama every pick he wants.

 

[Faun]

This isn't about voting to reject. This is about refusing to vote.

The above simple statement somehow escapes right wingers......McConnell and those 24 republican senators up for reelection are FULLY aware of the negative spectacle that their sitting on their arses would create for voters (especially independent ones.)

It certainly escapes some who simply lack the mental acumen required to understand the distinction. But there are some who do get it but try to conflate the two in a desperate attempt to defend the political party so many of them pretend they don't care about.

 

[Faun]

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

Sure, he could do exactly that if he wanted to show the people just how desperate he is to get another justice appointed and how scared he is that the next president will be a Republican. He does have quite the large ego.

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

There is no Constitutional requirement for a Senator to approve ANY nominee. I will state confidently that a Senator could go an entire career and NEVER vote to confirm a single appointee. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please post it.

Desperate? That's his job.

It's his job to nominate, that's pretty much the extent of it. If Congress doesn't want to play ball, it's on them.

Yes, it's on them -- to neglect their Constitutional responsibilities.

How do you think that will play out with the electorate?

Keep in mind, a poll of likely voters has already come out indicating that my a margin of 58% to 21%, respondents feel the Senate should vote on every nominee put up by the president.

They'll hold votes. They're not like the democrats of GW's day, who used the filibuster to prevent votes on his picks. In fact, they're so squishy the'll probably give Obama every pick he wants.

McConnell said they wouldn't consider any nominee Obama puts up. Some Republicans, not wanting to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities, even implored Obama to shirk his by not even putting one up.

 

[hadit]

Sure, he could do exactly that if he wanted to show the people just how desperate he is to get another justice appointed and how scared he is that the next president will be a Republican. He does have quite the large ego.

There is no Constitutional requirement for a Senator to approve ANY nominee. I will state confidently that a Senator could go an entire career and NEVER vote to confirm a single appointee. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please post it.

Desperate? That's his job.

It's his job to nominate, that's pretty much the extent of it. If Congress doesn't want to play ball, it's on them.

Yes, it's on them -- to neglect their Constitutional responsibilities.

How do you think that will play out with the electorate?

Keep in mind, a poll of likely voters has already come out indicating that my a margin of 58% to 21%, respondents feel the Senate should vote on every nominee put up by the president.

They'll hold votes. They're not like the democrats of GW's day, who used the filibuster to prevent votes on his picks. In fact, they're so squishy the'll probably give Obama every pick he wants.

McConnell said they wouldn't consider any nominee Obama puts up. Some Republicans, not wanting to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities, even implored Obama to shirk his by not even putting one up.

Political grandstanding. Obama's ego is too big to not do it, and the Republicans are too chicken to follow through. As for the Constitution, who's afraid of violating that old thing any more? Certainly not the current political class in DC.