The argument that there is a “precedent” set in the last 80 years of not confirming judges in a presidential election year, doesn’t hold up because justices are only nominated when there is a vacancy, which doesn’t always happen in a presidential election year. Also for the precedent to be set, there would have to be a record of either a president holding off on a nomination, until after the election, or a congress holding off on their confirmation. There is no such case. When it’s happened in an election year the president did his duty and put forth his nomination, and the congress the same. The last time being when Ronald Reagan was president. Also this idea that the people need to weigh in, is also ridiculous, since the people did elect Barack Obama for a four year term to make these decisions. There is also almost a full year until the expiration of Obama’s term, which would be a very long time to leave this seat vacant. I could concede that if there was a president-elect, that person should be consulted on a pick, but we are only at the beginning of the primary process. Whether you like Obama or not, this would be a bad precedent to set. Does certain powers of the presidency expire at different points of his or her term? There answer is no, the president is the president until January 20th at noon, and should have all the powers of the presidency until then.