Yeah, actually it's a pretty good reason.  If one side has more seats to lose, than that increases the likelyhood that they'll come out behind.  And again, that's out of only 1/3 of the country.  Plus the seats were mainly located in the south, and fewer incumbents were running from the democrats (incumbents win about 95% of the time or so regardless of party).

So, if you're going to want to throw out the senate approval rating (which is low even by historical standards), then fine.  Just don't throw in something just as meaningless to try and give a reason why the president shouldn't do the job according to the constitution, and why the senate should refuse to do theirs.  When you vote for a senator, you're voting for who should gain the powers of a Senator.  You're not voting to strip the current president of their power.

"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.

And the senate has the power to approve or not approve suprem court justice. They should use that power as well. The president can propose who he wants, if the senate does not like them they should not approve them. And voting in a congress that is opposssed to the president is voting to take his powers away. Its the check and balances. We couldnt vote Obama out, but we could vote for people who mitigate his power by not enactiing or writing legislature that he would want. its the whole point of not having a king, but a system of checks and balances.

They absolutely should evaluate the candidates, and judge them on whether or not they think they should be in the supreme court.  I have no issue with that.  But, Senators are saying that they will refuse to accept any nomination.  It's not a case of Senators doing their job in evaluating potential candidates, it is a matter of them not doing there job of evaluating candidates.

Forcing people to pay income tax is constitutional. there's a frickin constitutional ammendment stating such. so of course it is.

  Forcing people to drive a certain speed is constitutional. a state thing, not anything to do with constitution

  Fining people for not wearing seatbelts is constitutional. again state.

Not allowing people to drink in public is constitutional. come on this is all state.

Forcing people to wear clothes is constitutional. yet again not a constitutional issue

And there's one thing I'm forgetting... Oh yeah, forcing people to join the army to kill and risk death is constitutional.

well this i the only potentially vaild claim you have. though there is this thing in the constitution that charges the federal government to provide for national defense, and states they can raise a military.

Considering that those things are all constitutional, I don't think a fine for not having healthcare is so unreasonable, especially as the uninsured are a burden to the healthcare system, and there are individual exemptions for low income families.

Of course there going to say that cause no one in there right mind thinks Obama will appoint a moderate judge.And as thranx says checks and balances the Senate has the power to not approve, and the people voted them in to stop Obama not to help him.

And the senate has the power to approve or not approve suprem court justice. They should use that power as well. The president can propose who he wants, if the senate does not like them they should not approve them. And voting in a congress that is opposssed to the president is voting to take his powers away. Its the check and balances. We couldnt vote Obama out, but we could vote for people who mitigate his power by not enactiing or writing legislature that he would want. its the whole point of not having a king, but a system of checks and balances.

Except, that's not what they said.  They've said simply that Obama can't fill the vacancy at all.  This isn't a case of checks and balances, this is a case of the Senate outright refusing to fulfill their duty to help fill vacancies on the court.  Why shouldn't the Senate give any potential appointment an honest and fair evaluation, as is their responsibility? 

The fact that you want to ignore the 2012 election is ridiculous.  In 25 different terms in this century (out of 58), the president has had one or both parties representing the opposing party.  Not only is it possible for the population to vote one way with congress and another with the president, but it happens nearly half the time.  

And by the way, none of those 25 different congresses tried to obstruct the process in the way that is happening now.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Obama didn't run in 2014.  There are many factors involved in congress races, so to label this simply as "they voted against Obama" is a childish oversimplification to be charitable.  

And, what criteria may I ask do you use to claim the president should not be able to appoint a successor to Scalia?  Reagan was able to appoint in his last year.  Bush was allowed to appoint with a Senate controlled by the opposite party.  So on what criteria are you going to say that Obama should not be able to nominate ANYBODY to the court?