Search for 'Biden Rule' in LA Times editorial on 'stolen' Supreme Court seat comes up empty

Brett T. | 4:41 PM on March 25, 2017

We have to admit the case against naming Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court started out strong, what with that batch of protesters holding up their signs with “Gorsuch” filled in with marker literally seconds after President Trump named his nominee. Sen. Ben Sasse nailed it:

Went to the Supreme Court to talk to the protesters. But it turns out to be a Mad-Lib protest.#Fill-In-The-Blank pic.twitter.com/y156wBskMf

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) February 1, 2017

Despite the fact that many of the Democrats now opposing Gorsuch were involved in his unanimous Senate confirmation in 2006, they’re still trying to derail his confirmation, with some hanging on to the idea that the still-vacant Supreme Court seat was “stolen” from President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.

That idea got some support on Saturday from the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, which didn’t exactly allege that the seat was stolen …”But how else to describe it?” Hmm … if only there was some precedent to help them understand.

It's not Neil Gorsuch's fault, but we can't support his ascension to a stolen Supreme Court seat https://t.co/f1bDU2H1p8 pic.twitter.com/4Mc946iFjw

— L.A. Times Opinion (@latimesopinion) March 25, 2017

https://twitter.com/EF517_V2/status/845723395341864962

Biden Rule. Blame the democrats.

— Chuck Mullaley (@AU84Chuck) March 25, 2017

That’s strange; there’s no reference to Joe Biden anywhere in the LA Times editorial about the Republicans “going low” with this “underhanded ploy” to stonewall a nomination.

So, who exactly was the owner of this seat that was "stolen?" Please refer to the Constitution when making your answer.

— Clint Brooks (@clintbrooks) March 25, 2017