NYT whines: Trump STOLE SCOTUS seat from Obama

New York Times published some of Donald Trump's tax returns from 1995
New York Times

In an article posted on Christmas Eve, the New York Times Editorial Board whined that President-elect Donald Trump actually stole a Supreme Court seat from outgoing President Barack Obama.

According to the Times:

Soon after his inauguration next month, President-elect Donald Trump will nominate someone to the Supreme Court, which has been hamstrung by a vacancy since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. There will be public debates about the nominee’s credentials, past record, judicial philosophy and temperament. There will be Senate hearings and a vote.

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 continues:

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. The main perpetrators of the theft were Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, and Charles Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. But virtually all Republican senators were accomplices; only two supported holding hearings.

Townhall responded:

This angry piece omits inconvenient counter-examples from our history, of course, because that might interrupt the demagoguery party.  This seat was not “stolen.” It remained unfilled in an election year, in accordance with the so-called ‘Biden Rule’.

For those unfamiliar with this “rule,” here’s Biden explaining it himself:

Biden said at the time:

President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed. The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over...

Townhall’s Guy Benson added:

Did the Times denounce Biden for his “patent lie” back then?  Of course not, because they agreed with the “lie” at the time.  Click through for extra goodies from Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, who both offered justifications for obstructing Republican-nominated judges in the past — escalating partisan tactics that have always been cheered on by the New York Times, which is nothing less of an unprincipled, ends-justify-the-means propaganda organ of the Democratic Party. The Times‘ hypocrisy on the filibuster, for instance, is actually pretty hilarious in its hacktastic predictability.  It’s also worth pointing out that in addition to their scorched-earth editorializing against the election of Donald Trump, the Times editors urged voters across the country to defeat Republicans in a series of key Senate races.  In most of them — from Florida, to Missouri, to North Carolina — voters ignored the New York Times, and the GOP retained its majority.  In other words, the left-wing Times elites keep screaming into the ether, and people keep ignoring them.  The resulting frustration is leading to mounting derangement, to the point that I can’t help but wonder whether the Times may come out in favor of this preposterously illegal scheme before the year is out…

The Times went on to say that Trump and Senate Republicans have an obligation to “fix” the mess they allegedly created by renominating Garland.

Here’s an even better idea — Trump should nominate the person he thinks will best fill the spot and let the Senate do its Constitutional duty.  And if the Times doesn’t like it, well, that’s just too bad.


If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.

And if you’re as concerned about Facebook censorship as we are, go here and order this new book:

Banned: How Facebook enables militant Islamic jihad
Banned: How Facebook enables militant Islamic jihad – Source: Author (used with permission)

Joe Newby

A 10-year veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, Joe ran for a city council position in Riverside, Calif., in 1991 and managed successful campaigns for the Idaho state legislature. Co-author of "Banned: How Facebook enables militant Islamic jihad," Joe wrote for Examiner.com from 2010 until it closed in 2016 and his work has been published at Newsbusters, Spokane Faith and Values and other sites. He now runs the Conservative Firing Line.

Related Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×