A spending bill is entirely unrelated to a Supreme Court nominee. This is why Obama would look like a petulant child if he were to just decide to veto all spending bills because he didn't like the fact that he wasn't getting a Supreme Court nominee confirmed.
Well I did specifically state that Clinton vetoed spending bills and the public still sided with him. Given that, there's more evidence it wouldn't hurt Obama than not. Everything you're saying is speculation. And I wouldn't really discount using the SCOTUS nomination as a reason, either. Republicans trying to steal a nomination that isn't theirs to make isn't a minor thing, especially after you guys got to shape the court for generations.
He vetoed spending bills because he disagreed with what they contained. His position was more popular and Newt was a blundering fool in the public sphere.
OBama vetoing a spending bill over something totally unrelated is a completely different ball game.
CNN earlier today: "No more confirmations until the next President takes office" - Chuck Schumer in JULY 2007.