NYT Jumps Into the Judicial Nominee Fray.

Nevermind the American Enterprise Institute president embedded as a jounalist, what is up with this?  Semantics, people.

Mr. McConnell said that Mr. Obama “has every right to nominate someone,” and “even if doing so will inevitably plunge our nation into another bitter and avoidable struggle, that is his right. Even if he never expects that nominee to actually be confirmed but rather to wield as an electoral cudgel, that is his right.”

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the majority whip, said, “We believe the American people need to decide who is going to make this appointment rather than a lame-duck president.”

...

First, Mr. Obama is not a “lame-duck president.” The lame-duck period is broadly understood to run from after the November election until a new president is inaugurated in January. November is more than eight months off.  ...

Who is to say what is lame?
Why can't we call another a duck?
Who copyrighted the phrase "lame-duck president" and owns its definition?  Get where I'm going here? ("He is not a lame-duck president... Is too.  Is not. Is too. ..."  You don't really want to go back there, do you? Lord of the Flies days?)

In other words, if it quacks like a duck, and you recognize the call, and you know it won't be flying away any time soon, why can't you call that a lame duck?

Second, no matter how often Republicans repeat the phrase “let the people decide,” that’s not how the system works. The Constitution vests the power to make nominations to the court in the president, not “the people.” In any case, the people have already decided who should make this appointment: They elected Mr. Obama twice, by large margins.

No need to comment on that last paragraph.
They just don't see it, yet.  You can lead a horse to water and all...