Thanks. I thought so but was too lazy to look it up so I waited until someone else did the work for me.
The term “lame duck” technically applies to any president immediately upon taking office for a second term - not just after his successor is elected.
A lame duck is an office holder who won’t face re-election, for whatever reason.
Politically, he’s a lamer duck after his successor is elected though, since what he does will no longer affect the outcome of the election in favor of his party or preferred candidate.
I suppose you can define any term at all in any way you wish–or find to be politically expedient.
However, one of the generally-acknowledged features of using a common language is that its users tend to refrain from just making stuff up, instead relying upon well-accepted authorities such as dictionaries. Those who make stuff up may find that they are opening themselves up to ridicule (as with the Chicago Tribune column quoted by Dinsdale, a few posts back).
Cite?
You know, it seems silly to quibble over the exact definition of “lame duck”. We have all the information necessary to know exactly what will happen in the next few weeks and months.
We know the GOP doesn’t want Obama to pick another justice, right up until there is still a chance of a GOP president. Once it becomes clear that such a thing won’t happen, they’ll pivot to figure out who would pick a more palatable nominee, Obama or President Clinton/Sanders. In the meantime, the only other consideration is how long the GOP can drag this process out to the point where it will start hurting them in the polls. These facts will determine what will happen in the coming fight. The BS about who’s a real lame duck or distractions on election year confirmations are all just a smoke screen to cover up the real reason. We all know this, so please let’s not pretend like we don’t and argue about what’s a lame duck. It doesn’t matter. Nobody in Congress takes that argument seriously even when they are using it. Its the same reason why Senator Grassley can remain with his head unexploded while claiming that nobody confirms in an election year while having supported Kennedy’s confirmation in the last year of Reagan’s presidency.
I couldn’t agree more. My definition is the original, and the most common. However, it is typical for people to expand definitions as they misunderstand the original one. That may have happened here.
The citations differ. Some use the newer understandings of the word. Here’s one that I prefer that I think reflects the original meaning of the term:
This would also apply to a term-limited officeholder in his/her last term, as with the president.
Oh, it’s silly alright. But that won’t stop us.
And through the looking glass we go…
Politically, the general usage of “lame duck” regarding the president has come to mean the last couple years of a president’s second term, when there are no more midterms or reelection campaigns ahead. But the premise that a lame duck cannot nominate judges is deeply flawed.
We have to stop using Kennedy as ammunition for our side, though. He was only confirmed in an election year after being nominated in the previous year, and after two previous nominees had been defeated by the Senate. Justice Powell had announced his retirement way back in June of '87, almost twice as long before the election as there is now.
I rolled my eyes at the conspiracy theories, but it turns out there are actually some odd details about Scalia’s death:
Since Cruz and Rubio are both Senators, if they are seen as obstructionists how would that affect them in the primaries as opposed to Trump?
In the primaries? It’ll help them, since the Republican primary electorate by and large likes obstructionism.
It’ll hurt them in the general, though, if it comes to that. As well as hurting the Republicans in Senate elections.
Well, if it hobbles like a lame duck…
Yeah, true. But ducks are plump-bodied birds. If there’s one thing Obama is not, it’s plump. So we’re still only half-right. 
I’m no assassin, but I’m reasonably certain that if an assassin is hired to murder someone with a pillow in his sleep, and is trying to make it look like natural causes, said assassin wouldn’t leave said pillow on his victim’s face.
Though this article is worth reading just to find out that there is a person named Cinderela Guevara.
I can’t speak for Scalia, but I sleep with my head under a spare pillow to block out light.
Really? And you breathe OK?
I am not a fan of the judge declaring the COD natural sight unseen.
ETA: If for no other reason than to preempt conspiracy talk.
I read an article today somewhere speculating that it was sleep apnea boosted by the altitude (Cibolo is about 4500 feet) + possibly alchohol and/or painkillers for a torn rotor cuff injury. But who knows. I mean, we know the rotor cuff injury and the altitude, I guess. Plus wine with dinner is a reasonable assumption. It’s a really nice restaurant. But who knows.
I guess the family doesn’t want an autopsy. The local law enforcement didn’t think the pillow looked suspicious. Clearly, they’re conspiring together.
Yep. If it was murder then why no signs of a struggle? If they posed the body to make it look like there was no struggle then that sure was careless leaving the pillow there.
And the other point, that he (allegedly) chose cremation in his will, despite disputing the second Vatican Council’s legitimacy, and it was this council that first proposed that cremation should not be banned by the catholic church…is hilariously desperate reaching.