Given the results of the recent election, do you think that Governors have a strong moral,

[Bunny]

even if it's not a legal, obligation to appoint a Senator who represents the demographic of the one being replaced? Should Obama's replacement be a black man, or any black person? Should Hillary's be a white woman, or a woman of any race? Should Joe's be a white guy, etc.?

If the residents of their states duly elected them, aren't those residents entitled to representation by someone in that same demographic?

To take it a step further, should a Governor be obligated to name a replacement who is in the same political party as the departed one, regardless of the Gov's political persuasion? If you have elected Democrats as your Senators, and one resigns, why should a (R)Governor get to appoint a Republican?

I don't really have an opinion on this, I'm just curious as to what others think.

[Warpy]

1. No, I think racism and sexism are lousy reasons to appoint

anyone to anything.

The moral/ethical choice should be to appoint a competent person with an ideology comparable to that of the elected official s/he is to replace.

[blondeatlast]

2. No, but there should be an attempt to replace them with someone who has similar political

sensibilities.

Of course, after the Blago mess, I'm not sure it should be left up to the governors (who may not be elected themselves, as in AZ) period. I'd rather see a special election.

[RB TexLa]

3. A governor should appoint whomever they want based on whatever reasons they wish to use.

[Critters2]

4. And should send the invoice promptly. nt