Currently Online 
thranx said:
"No... the people have not spoken. More democratic seats happened to be up that year (21 to 15) and fewer of the seats for democrats had incumbents. The seats up for reelection happened to be largely in the south, Less people tend to vote during election years. And of course, there are many factors that go into the senate races. "
You are saying the people have spoken in favor of dems. I am saying you need to look at the whole picture. More state governers are repubs now than before the presidential election, congress has more repubs now than before. So the people have spoken, after 8 years of Obama and dems, the people have realized they made a poor choice in leadership and will now rectify the lat reamining spot of dem power in the white house.
So in other words, Obama should not apoint the next supreme court justice, the next president should. It the right thing, and its what a president of character would do. But Obama is not a man of character so I am sure he will whine along with the left about it. I can only hope that the republicans in congress do what is right, but I have doubt in that too. Maybe the next wave to overtake the political scene will be the tea party movement. |
This concept that the president should not appoint a supreme court justice if there is evidence that within some amount of time the general political environment will not be his favor is an interesting one. How far would you like that idea to go? Considering the demographics of replublicans and democrats wouldn't the right thing for a republican president to do be to wait until a democrat is in office because his supreme court nominee will likely serve into the eventual political change as generations change? I mean if we're going to wait a year why not wait 20 or 30 until that generation and demographic change which seems to be the inescapable death knell of social conservatism?
...
