Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, believes the U.S. Senate should wait 11 months for the next president to be sworn in before confirming a Supreme Court justice to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the conservative leader said in a statement following the news of Scalia's death. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” [CBS News, 2/13/16]

Supreme Court Experts And Reporters Say The Senate Would Be “Abdicating Its Constitutional Responsibility” If It Refuses To Hold Confirmation Hearings For A SCOTUS Nominee. Media Matters reported on February 16 that legal scholars and Supreme Court reporters argued “the president has a duty to appoint a replacement for Scalia” and that the Senate would be “abdicating its constitutional responsibility if it does not hold hearings to approve or reject such nominees”:

Several legal scholars and Supreme Court beat reporters contend the president has a duty to appoint a replacement for Scalia, adding that the U.S. Senate is abdicating its constitutional responsibility if it does not hold hearings to approve or reject such nominees.

“It would be highly unusual for any president NOT to appoint someone,” Linda Greenhouse, a former New York Times Supreme Court reporter from 1978 to 2008 and a 1998 Pulitzer Prize winner, said via email. “It's up to the Republicans to explain why they would refuse even to consider a qualified nominee.”

Stephen Wermiel, a professor of constitutional law at American University Washington College of Law is an expert in Supreme Court jurisprudence, agreed: “Obama has a right and a duty to make an appointment. It is not desirable by any measure to have the Supreme Court go an entire year with only eight justices instead of nine and have to resolve things by 4-4 ties and by other methods. The Constitution says the president shall appoint, it doesn't say only when it's politically convenient.”

Tony Mauro, a National Law Journal reporter who has covered The Supreme Court for 36 years, called it “one of a president's most important duties.”

“It's in the Constitution to nominate, it doesn't mean the Senate has to confirm,” he said. “I've been surprised that people are suggesting that he shouldn't even nominate anyone, that seems a little over the top. Nominating is one of the most important things that a president does. There is a vacancy on the court, so it is his duty.” [Media Matters, 2/16/16]

ABC's George Stephanopoulos: “This Sounds Like A New Rule ... That A President Can't Pick A Supreme Court Justice In His Or Her Final Year.” On the February 14 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos the host said the GOP's restriction on the president nominating a justice in his final year sounded like “a new rule”:

JOHN KASICH: You know what I said about the president, and, look, he's going to send somebody. The Senate's going to do nothing, George. You know my sense is, you're going to have a presidential election here. People will in a very unusual way indirectly sort of pick the next judge of -- justice of the Supreme Court. It's pretty interesting.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (HOST): It is pretty interesting, but this sounds like a new rule now. A rule that a president can't pick a Supreme Court justice in his or her final year.

KASICH: Well, George, you know, look, you know how polarized everything is. We have got to be real about things, and what I don't want to see is more fighting and more recrimination which is exactly what we're going to see. Let's just face up to this. We are very divided between President Obama and the Congress. And it's, you know, and look. When you have that kind of division, it's really hard to get this done. If I were president of the United States, you know, and I could keep the Congress together, of course I would send somebody. But it would probably be a different situation. But right now, just looking at it. It's one of the reasons I'm running for president. You know, they're Republicans and Democrats really in most cases before they're Americans. But the divisions are real. So let's just wait for an election, move beyond it, and then whoever we pick as a justice and gets confirmed will have broad consensus across the country and can start the healing process. [ABC, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, 2/14/16]

CNN Presidential Historian: “Of Course” There's No Precedent Barring Obama From Filling SCOTUS Vacancy. During the February 17 edition of CNN's New Day, CNN presidential scholar Douglas Brinkley said President Obama was “doing his job” by promising to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court:

CHRIS CUOMO (HOST): Douglas, let's start with you. Just so that we can all have history in context. This is really about politics. That's the argument that we've been forwarding here on New Day. When you look at the Constitution, when you look at historical precedent, is there any legitimate basis for saying we don't do this in the final year of a presidential term? We traditionally don't this, as a matter of fact, we hold off on these types of appointments and these types of hearings. Is there any basis for that in fact?

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY: Well, of course not. That's not in our U.S. Constitution, and that was the point President Obama was making from Rancho Mirage yesterday, that he's doing his job. He has a vacant seat to fill. He plans to nominate somebody, and he wants the Senate to act responsibly. But as you intimated, this is a heavy political season. 2016's one of the most brutal moments in partisan warfare in the recent annals of American history. So it's unlikely the President's going to be able to get anybody through this year. But he very well might be able to get a Senate hearing, particularly if he can get Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, you know, at least the bucking Mitch McConnell crowd and saying, look, maybe we do, at least need to give -- if Obama picks somebody -- a public hearing, we'll have to see on that. [CNN, New Day, 2/17/16]

MSNBC's Luke Russert: Senate GOP Refusing To Vote On Obama Nomination “Unprecedented In Modern History.” On the February 23 edition of MNSBC's The Place for Politics, Luke Russert reported that McConnell and Senate GOP leadership are defying precedent by planning to not vote or hold hearings on an Obama Supreme Court nominee, saying that “it's been a practice for the Senate Judiciary Committee since it's founding in 1816 to move forward on a nomination that comes from the president”:

THOMAS ROBERTS: So, Luke, this is about filling vacancies in an election year. The specific words, though, of Vice President Biden are about resignation of a justice, not so much about a justice's death while still serving on that lifetime appointment. Is there a distinction in semantics to make about that? 

LUKE RUSSERT: Well, that's the important distinction that Democrats are trying to put forward, Thomas, and Harry Reid said that so much in a press conference, saying, “look, Joe says a lot of things, it's comparing apples to oranges.” However, Republicans have seized on this and said “this is the Biden Rule.” They've also pointed to past comments made by Reid and Schumer where they suggest holding up judges in some respect. The issue though for Republicans is that what they're going to do is unprecedented in modern history. Every nominee, pending nominee, for the Supreme Court in the last century has gotten a vote on the Senate floor. It's been the practice of the Senate Judiciary Committee since its founding in 1816 to move forward on a nomination that comes from the president. The fact that the Republicans won't even schedule a Judicial Committee hearing, won't even have a vote on the floor, they're going all in on this. We'll see how it plays out in those swing states in 2016, but Mitch McConnell being very, very fervent about it today saying he won't even meet with President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court because he does not think it means anything. [MSNBC, The Place for Politics, 2/23/16]

Media Credulously Report That GOP's Extreme Position Echoes Biden Position From 1992

But Biden Was Talking About A Possible Vacancy By Resignation, Not By Death, And Was Not Suggesting He Would Refuse To Consider Any Nomination Until The Next President

Biden Said In 1992 Speech That President Bush Should “Not Name A Nominee [To The Supreme Court] Until After The November Election” Because He Predicted “One Of The Bitterest, Dirtiest Presidential Campaigns ... In Modern Times.”  A C-SPAN video released on February 22 showed Joe Biden in 1992 as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee calling on former President George H. W. Bush “not [to] name a nominee until after the November election is completed” in the event of a vacancy by resignation, because of heightened partisanship. However, Biden continued that “if the president consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter”:

Biden Explains His Statement Is Being Misrepresented, And Under His Leadership The Senate Confirmed A GOP Nominee During An Election Year

Joe Biden: Claims That He Opposed Filling A SCOTUS Vacancy In An Election Year Are “Not An Accurate Description Of My Views.” In a February 22 statement Vice President Joe Biden said his 1992 comments were about “a hypothetical vacancy” and that in fact he “encouraged the Senate and the White House to 'work together to overcome partisan differences,'” which “remains [his] position today.” Biden also highlighted his record as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointing out that “he presided over the process to appoint Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed to the Supreme Court in a presidential election year.” As reported by The New York Times on February 23, Biden's aides also pointed out that “he had been warning against filling a vacancy created by a voluntary resignation of a justice rather than a vacancy created by an unexpected death. In any event, no such vacancy occurred”: