What do you mean, too weak a president? The president can’t push back on that—-the senate confirms justices, that’s in the constitution:
... and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States...
>It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said, “ ‘No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’ ”
>It is in full accord with traditional notions of waiver to say that the Senate, having been given a reasonable opportunity to provide advice and consent to the president with respect to the nomination of Garland, and having failed to do so, can fairly be deemed to have waived its right.
For a long time, Senate approval was a rubber stamp. As the ability to legislate in Congress declined, Supreme Court nominees became a battle ground (see also “Robert Bork”). It would have been good to see him lobby not that he is able to get Merrick Garland, but that the process had been inappropriately politicized. That would have been a rebuke to both sides and maybe even a call for cooler heads to prevail. Just my $.02
Further, Bork was nominated knowing that he wouldn't be confirmed. A gambit that worked. The electoral backlash has served Republicans quite well since.
What do you mean "too weak"? It's literally impossible for the President to push through a judge who the Senate refuses to even vote on. There's nothing Obama, or any president, could have done. It's not within their power.
The thinking on this is that the rules, arcane as they are, say the Senate must “advise” on the Supreme Court pick (or something to that effect). So the argument is that Obama could have said, well, they were given an opportunity to advise and decided not to, so I’m going to fill the seat. The legality of this is grey, but it was discussed a bit at the time.
Clearly Obama should have just done an end-run around Congress, because that's how democracy works in America now, right? Just write an Executive Order and ignore the fact that it's totally and completely illegal. That would show "true grit," breaking the constitution and all...
Used his political (not official) powers to shift the public discourse more effectively. He did not make much effort to attack McConnell's brinkmanship.
If he pushed back, what good could it have done? He couldn’t force the Republican senate to hold a vote and even if he did force a vote, Republicans wouldn’t have confirmed his nominee.
