Obama evolves on filibustering SCOTUS nominees

From The American Thinker: Yesterday, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)'s conveniently contradictory positions on a lame duck president filling a Supreme Court vacancy, which depended on the party of the lame duck president, got some attention.

Digging a little further, it turns out that our self-described constitutional scholar president, Barack Hussein Obama (D), he who was editor of the supposedly prestigious Harvard Law Review, despite some mystery about his grades also has changed...er, evolved in his attitudes about filibustering and rejecting Supreme Court nominees.

Randy DeSoto at Western Journalism nicely sums up Obama's hypocrisy on I was for filibustering until I was against it as "poetic justice."

Back in 2006, while Obama, a newly elected senator from Illinois, was biding his time until he could secure the nomination for president, then-president George W. Bush (R) nominated Samuel Alito to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Speaking to George Stephanopoulos (formerly of the Clinton administration) on the Sunday morning program This Week, Obama stated that because Alito did not have the proper judicial philosophy – i.e., Obama's – Alito wouldn't be independent of the White House. Therefore, Obama would:

... be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly.

Pot calling the kettle black.