It’s tit-for-tat with Judge Garland

I have been mildly amused at the left’s insistence that Judge Merrick Garland, Obama’s third nominee to the Supreme Court, be given an up-or-down vote, especially when you consider their history of opposing appointments by Republicans.

One example of their hypocrisy can be found in none other than The New York Times regarding the ideological assault on Robert Bork. It editorialized:

“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.”

When it comes to the Senate, from June 2001 to January 2003, when Democrats were in control, many conservative appellate nominees were stalled in committee and never given hearings or votes.

The Republicans then won the Senate and took over in 2003. On Feb. 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the District of Columbia Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be successfully filibustered. Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered.

So what is my point? The left started this madness. Now it gets to be on the receiving end.

This story was originally published April 18, 2016 at 7:37 AM with the headline "It’s tit-for-tat with Judge Garland."