Then and now: The New York Times on potential Supreme Court nominees

THEN:

• "Senate Democrats, who have been willing to block ideologues nominated to the lower courts, will certainly do everything they can to prevent a right-wing ideologue from joining the nation's highest court. Before that fight begins, Mr. Bush should ask himself whether Americans want to live in a country where the handicapped cannot find a champion in the law, where women are stripped of all abortion rights, where universities are barred from offering a hand up to deserving minority students."

--editorial, New York Times, July 2, 2005

• "Far-right activists are pressuring President Bush to choose an extremist. . . . The far right's agenda for the court is a frightening one. Activists want a justice who will radically reinterpret the Commerce Clause and other parts of the Constitution to tie Congress's hands, so it no longer has the power to protect people from discrimination, unsafe working conditions and pollution. They want to obliterate the constitutional right to privacy, which is the basis not only for the right to abortion, but also for such elemental protections as the right to buy contraception."

--editorial, New York Times, July 17, 2005

NOW:
• "Never mind that President Obama has not even tipped his hand about his choice to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. It's never too early, it appears, to start the character assassination . . ."
--editorial, New York Times, May 8, 2009

Via Best of the Web.

Being a Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" means you never have to explain for your hypocrisy and double standards.

Ever.

That's particularly true if you're some kind of absurd and increasingly irrelevant political., social, and economic media icon whose death rattle prattle is way too obvious.

#