Clinton Wants to Have It Both Ways on the Supreme Court

Letter of mine ran here in THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER on February 19. My original appears below. (And, yes, those cases were about specific appointees. My point is about the selective outrage, which any regular reader here would know is a common theme at BeneGram.)

I see that Sec. Hillary Clinton is now lambasting Republicans for the suggestion that the process to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed suddenly on February 13, should be delayed. Let us recall that Clinton was one member of the United States Senate to engage in filibuster against Samuel Alito when President Bush nominated him during his second term. (Then-Senators Barack Obama and John Kerry did the same.) Clinton, in fact, also used the filibuster against many Bush nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals. As for the years before Clinton was even First Lady, one need only enter the name "Robert Bork" into a search engine to see how Democrats have behaved when faced with a nominee they didn't like. 

So, apparently, Democrats, such as Clinton, are opposed to obstructing the process of replacing a Supreme Court justice -- except when they aren't.