NYT's crocodile tears over Trump's SCOTUS nomination

[Core]

Cute article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/neil-gorsuch-the-nominee-for-a-stolen-seat.html

NYT calls the seat "stolen" because the republicans refused to consider Garland last year. Later they call what the republicans did an "abuse of power". So sore. Would the dems have done any differently? Nope. In fact, what the republicans did was not abuse power, but leverage it. What rule did they break? What law? No rule, no law. They, for once, played to win. And they won. And NYT's crocodile tears that the republicans are being mean is pretty transparent. It's like those poker players who use sunglasses. Is it cool, is it really in the spirit of poker? Probably not. Is it legal; is it compliant with rules? Yes, and so you can't slight them for using all the techniques available to them.

[The_Field_Ager]

The tears started long before he even made the announcement

[philoshop]

A lot of the choice in the election came down to a Liberal activist SCOTUS vs a Constitutional SCOTUS. The Constitutional side won.

[Rattler]

Obviously, the NYT's doesn't think Rule of Law based on the Constitution is best for the country.  Better to make future changes to the law, based on the whims of the people in power, with an eye to retaining their power.  How could that be bad?

[Core]

I do hear some whining about trump being a constitutional crisis. Like that's matter; when it comes to something like guns suddenly the constitution is a living document and that is an anachronism.