LOL. Today‚Äôs New York Times‚Äô editorial on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court is titled, ‚ÄúNeil Gorsuch, the Nominee for a Stolen Seat.‚ÄĚ
Or maybe we should call it a ‚Äútemper tantrum‚ÄĚ as that more fitting:
This NYT editorial = temper tantrum. https://t.co/22L3Br5VV6
‚ÄĒ Tom Bevan (@TomBevanRCP) February 1, 2017
The editors seem to think that Hillary Clinton‚Äôs popular-vote total should determine who Trump picked:
‚Ä¶Mr. Trump‚Äôs failure to choose a more moderate candidate is the latest example of his refusal to acknowledge his historic unpopularity and his nearly three-million-vote loss to Hillary Clinton. A wiser president faced with such circumstances would govern with humility and a respect for the views of all Americans.
And can we go back a sec to the whole idea that this was somehow a ‚Äústolen seat‚ÄĚ? Let us direct the New York Times editors to their own article on how then Sen. Joe Biden argued in 1992 for the exact same thing that Senate Republicans did to President Obama‚Äôs SCOTUS nominee, Merrick Garland:
nominee for a stolen seat ‚ÄĒ>>> The Biden Rule. He set the precedent. ‚ÄĒ> https://t.co/uFdVBkq8aQ
‚ÄĒ little sweet tweets (@Lil_SweetTweets) February 1, 2017
Here‚Äôs Biden in his very own words, via the New York Times:
‚ÄúIt would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.
‚ÄúThat is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me,‚ÄĚ he added, ‚Äúwe will be in deep trouble as an institution.‚ÄĚ
And there you have it: Not stolen, ‚ÄúBidened.‚ÄĚ