The New York Times editorial board does not pretend to be objective, bipartisan, or anything other than a liberal mouthpiece, but even they usually have standards. Low standards. Catering-to-New-York-liberal-reader standards, but standards nonetheless. For instance, you wouldn’t typically expect to see them publish a piece with outright cheerleading the way they did this weekend. A piece in which they instruct Senate Democrats to do everything possible to block President Trump’s nomination to the Supreme Court. A piece in which they call for, as a matter of legislative practice, what amounts to complete and total obstruction.
But that’s what they did.
In an editorial published Sunday, the Editorial Board said that even though Democrats, with their minority in the Senate, had little chance of stopping Trump and the Republicans, the liberal senators should nonetheless “take a page from The Godfather and go to the mattresses on the issue.”
For the Times, the issue isn’t necessarily whether Democrats can block the nominee – they concede it’s a longshot – but whether they can turn the judiciary into a long-term political battery with which they can energize the liberal base.
“The fire now raging against Mr. Trump and his nominees can’t be sustained indefinitely,” they write. “Before it burns out, Democrats need to tap some of the energy to help make the courts an enduring cause for their voters. Because of the destructive game played most cynically, and with the greatest indifference to judicial integrity, by Mr. McConnell, the notion of jurists as unbiased umpires in robes has become, for now, dangerously naïve. We wish it weren’t.”
What an absolute laugh. We can accept to some degree that the average low-information Democrat voter still holds on to the belief that the Supreme Court is above petty politics, but we aren’t dumb enough to buy into the idea that the New York Times does…or that they have in many, many a year. We’re not sure when that naïve idea died in the minds of the attention-paying American, but it was long before Donald Trump came on the scene. Hell, it might have been before Mitch McConnell arrived in Washington.
This isn’t about Trump picking some no-name judge who has pledged allegiance to him in a back room of the White House. Critics and supporters alike know that he’s going to choose someone in the mold of Neil Gorsuch – a principled constitutional originalist who will do the Supreme Court proud. This is about nothing OTHER than politics – nothing OTHER than keeping the court out of “conservative” hands for as long as possible. Nothing OTHER than doing everything possible to stack the court with liberal activists who will decide cases using everything but the Constitution. The New York Times and every other “woke” liberal is scared to death what a constitutionally-bound court will look like for their progressive agenda.
They should be.