Give me a break! Executive action is allowed by the rule of law. It is a strategy that has been used time and again by every president throughout U.S. history. Obama has used it far less than any other president in history. You are wrong to state that the U.S. Senate should abrogate their duty to have a hearing and vote on the Supreme Court nominee. There are many critical cases coming up that may go undecided due to a split court. And, guess what? They thought they would beat Obama the first time. When he won, they set out to obstruct him at every turn so that they could beat him the second time. He won again and they have continued to obstruct at every turn. There will be a new Democratic president in November who will nominate a Supreme Court justice to replace Scalia if this Republican Senate doesn't confirm Garland. The new nominee may just be named Barack Obama.