I had wondered where they were.  I wondered why there was so little commentary and "expert" analysis from the ivory towers about the Supreme Court and Executive powers issues over the past seven years.

The university law departments have been exceedingly quiet during the Obama years.  Where were the "expert" opinions on the Supreme Court altering key language in a passed bill, the Affordable Care Act, and not requiring a revote?  The fines were actually taxes, they decided, but the bill was passed with the word "fine."  But tax issues must originate in the House, and a bill full of the word "tax" would have met stronger head winds in Congress.  A reconsideration by lawmakers, with the new language, was the prudent and legal resolution to the issue.  Yet this didn't happen, and the law departments of our great universities were mute.

And what of executive orders and their misuse by an executive?  Article II, section 3, clause 5 is the basis for executive orders.  It insists that the president must faithfully execute the laws of the nation.  And to assist him, as the theory goes, he has executive order powers that will be used to assist in the implementation passed law.  But what reaction from our law professors cometh when executive powers were used to "undo" passed law or invert the original intent of passed law?  Mute again.

Now we come to the Scalia vacancy and the right of the president to recommend a replacement.  This presidential right to recommend is uncontested.  What is up for debate is the duty of the Senate to entertain the recommendation(s).  Suddenly, it seems every editor is calling his alma mater's law department for a friendly comment.

Steven Lubet, law professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law (same Pritzker family close to Obama), got the call.  He authored a recent article calling for a "Move Forward on Filling Scalia's Seat."

President Barack Obama intends to fulfill his constitutional role by nominating a successor to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Republicans in the Senate, however, have already declared that they intend to stop him.

Can we stop you there, Steve?  No one is intending to stop the president from nominating anyone.

Continuing, the author says, "The Senate, then controlled by Democrats, confirmed Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1988, which was the last year of the Reagan presidency, rather than wait for the results of the November election. The situation this year demands no less."

A letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune (2/18/2016) catches Mr. Lubet in a little game. 

But he [Lubet] neglects to mention that the vacancy occurred in June of 1987, when Justice Powell retired.  In that case, the vacancy actually occurred 18 months before the "lame duck" president's term expired, not just 11 months as is the case now.

That Senate rejected Reagan's first choice (Bork), and the second (Ginsburg) withdrew his name.  Reagan picked Kennedy to be a moderate centrist.  Can we expect the same from Obama?

This lame duck nomination topic seems to bring the law professors out of the woodwork. 

Where were they for the past seven years of constitutional twisting and bending?