Hillary -- Doing What Obama Did To Alito To Obama's Nominee is Racist

From Ace of Spades HQ via H/T at Hot Air:

The thought leaders on the Left had no problem with Senate obstruction when it came to blocking Republican nominees to the Supreme Court, and not just in 2006. The New York Times editorial board thought that Senate midterms overrode deference to presidential prerogative in 1987. When the shoe was on the other foot in the final 18 months of the Ronald Reagan presidency, the Paper of Record made it clear that the voter mandate that counted when it came to Supreme Court nominations was the sixth-year midterm, not the fourth-year re-election. Guy Benson dug up this gem from the NYT archives:

The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.

And now, this is not the same Senate that confirmed Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor earlier in Obama’s term. People elected a Republican majority in the Senate, and according to NYT’s standards in 1987, that gives Republicans every right to resist. Now, if Obama wants to consult with Senate Republicans and pick someone who passes muster with this Senate majority, perhaps that could be arranged. Otherwise, the GOP will just play by the rules set by the Left and four current and former members of the Obama administration.

Well of course it is, the shoe is on the other foot.