We are not electing a president this term, we are electing the supreme court.
Mark my words. Either Obama or Mitt will enact another assault weapons ban next term, it will not have an expiration date. The case will have to go before the supreme court (if they will hear it) and the decision on that case will be made by the people who Obama or Mitt appoint to the position.
Are you arguing that Romney will nominate better justices than Obama?
If that's the case, I respectfully disagree.
Romney supported an individual mandate. Regardless of what he says now, I still believe he supports it in his heart of hearts.
Romney supported a gun control. Regardless of what he says now, I still believe he supports it in his heart of hearts.
Romney currently supports foreign wars of aggression
Romney currently supports the War on Some Drugs.
In these ways, and in many, many others, he is a carbon-copy of Obama when it comes to their core, Northeastern (I know both are originally from the Midwest, but the NE is the Mecca), liberal value systems. What makes you think he would, out of the blue, start appointing constitutionalists?
Of course, this is assuming that the next president gets to nominate any justices at all.
The oldest justice (79) is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal loon and aged feminazi. This is followed by Scalia (76), Kennedy (75), and Breyer (73). Scalia is regarded as conservative, Kennedy as "moderate" (aka liberal lite), and Breyer as liberal. So, the way I figure, there is a 1 in 2 chance of the next appointment being to replace a liberal, so we wouldn't lose anything anyway. There is a 1 in 4 chance that a moderate will get replaced with someone more liberal, and a 1 in 4 chance that a conservative stalwart will be replaced with Barack's latest diversity hire. The odds aren't great, but they are better for us than for the other side. Besides, if Obama wins reelection, I think Scalia will cling on just to avoid giving Uncle Barry the chance to replace him.