The New York Times Thinks Trump ‘Stole’ A Supreme Court Seat. Because They’re Stupid.

By: Ben Shapiro,

December 26, 2016

One of the great benefits of Hillary Clinton’s shocking election loss is the full-scale meltdown of the American left. Leading the pack: The New York Times, which had set up a prayer shrine in the editorial board conference room. Now, they’ve been relegated to whining about how the Republican Senate wouldn’t approve Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

Get out the world’s tiniest violin.

Shed a single tear.

The New York Times is in mourning:
No matter how it plays out, Americans must remember one thing above all: The person who gets confirmed will sit in a stolen seat. It was stolen from Barack Obama, a twice-elected president who fulfilled his constitutional duty more than nine months ago by nominating Merrick Garland, a highly qualified and widely respected federal appellate judge. It was stolen by top Senate Republicans, who broke with longstanding tradition and refused to consider any nominee Mr. Obama might send them, because they wanted to preserve the court’s conservative majority.

Why Right-Wing Media Is Objecting to Social Media’s Plan For Fake News
Sponsored Content

Why Right-Wing Media Is Objecting to Social Media’s Plan For Fake News

By CNN Reliable Sources

This, of course, neglects the fact that Vice President Joe Biden, back when he was a Senator, supported the identical policy. In 1992, Biden, who then chaired the Judiciary Committee, said that a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year” should require the president to avoid naming someone to fill the seat. “It 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.”

Nonetheless, The New York Times called the Republican logic “a patent lie.” What about the notion that the Senate can refuse a vote on anything it chooses? According to the editors, “advise and consent” means that Republicans must vote on Obama’s choice, not that they can use their Constitution prerogative to stymie the executive branch – the clear power delegated to them under the Constitution.

Then, laughably, the Times made the case that the Republicans had undercut judicial norms: “the court’s institutional legitimacy depends on its perceived separation from the elected branches — a fragile concept in the best of times.” What about Barack Obama calling out specific judicial decisions during the State of the Union address? What about the Supreme Court overrunning its own delegated powers by greenlighting executive expansion, while curbing state powers thanks to its self-perceived moral superiority and leaving intact clear violations of the Constitution?

The Times laments:
The slope is both slippery and steep. If Republicans could justify an election-year blockade, what’s to stop Democrats in the future from doing the same? For that matter, why should the party controlling the Senate ever allow a president of the opposing party to choose a justice? Indeed, in the weeks before the election, Senate Republicans were threatening, with the encouragement of leading conservative thinkers, never to confirm anyone to fill the vacancy if Hillary Clinton won.

Correct. As well the Republicans should have, given the Democratic tendency to install super-legislators to the Court. But the Times instead calls for Trump to renominate Garland, or to nominate a centrist. It isn’t going to happen. But in the fantasy world of The Times, the Constitution only delegates power to Democrats, and Republicans must bend before them.

Thankfully, we don’t live in that fantasy world.

kommonsentsjane