As you might suspect, the hypocrites at the New York Times are working overtime.
Unleashing a stream of venom and hypocrisy, the Times editorial board on Wednesday lambasted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate for announcing they will not hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee this election year.
“Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader who seems to have lost touch with reality and the Constitution, accused Mr. Obama of plunging the nation into a ‘bitter and avoidable struggle’ should he name anyone to the court,” the breathless editorial declares.
But the opinion piece forgets to note that the New York Times has been here before – on the other side of the issue.
In 2006, the left-bending newspaper urged Senate Democrats to do what Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, as well as Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wanted to do: obstruct a vote on conservative Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
“Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster,” the Times editorial board wrote at the time.
While acknowledging there was little chance of success, the newspaper called for Dems to fight the good fight and slow up the process. Why? In part because of “Alito’s refusal to even pretend to sound like a moderate.”
“It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public’s attention to the import of this nomination,” the 2006 editorial stated.
The Times thought it fitting to filibuster then because there was a principle at stake. And while Republicans now assert they are standing on principle, that they want to wait until the dust settles on the presidential election before taking up such a monumental decision, the New York Times and their lefty friends complain that’s no principle at all.
Nor does the editorial board note Vice President Joe Biden’s position in 1992, when Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, called for delay should there be a need for President George H.W. Bush to submit a Supreme Court nominee.
“It is my view, that if a Supreme Court justice resigns today or tomorrow or within the next several weeks … President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, NOT, name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” Biden said.
In 2006, the New York Times was so worried about the impact Alito would have on the court that it advised obstruction. In 2016, the newspaper cannot possibly understand why Republicans should have the same reservations about the nominee of arguably the most left-leaning president in U.S. history.