I haven’t read the New York Times editorials on the Scalia succession, and I’m not going to unless they pop up on my screen by accident.
But I did happen to stumble across their 1987 editorial on why the Senate was correct to reject Robert Bork, and one of the reasons was that. . . well, take in this paragraph for yourself, but not with a mouthful of milk or coffee:
The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.
“Every right to resist” since they won the mid-term election, eh?
Actually, the entire editorial, if you have the time to waste, is an ironic case of why Bork should have been confirmed. But in the twisted hall of mirrors that is the NY Times editorial page. . .