The New York Times left no doubt about where it stands on Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. An editorial this week, titled “Neil Gorsuch, the Nominee for a Stolen Seat,” lamented about how “Senate Republicans took an empty Supreme Court seat hostage, discarding a constitutional duty that both parties have honored throughout American history and hobbling an entire branch of government for partisan gain.” The editors argue that Merrick Garland “is both more moderate and more qualified than Judge Gorsuch.” But Republicans “abused their power as the majority party and … shut down the confirmation process for the remainder of Mr. Obama’s presidency.”

“There would be no negotiations to release this hostage,” the Times complains. “[T]he sole object was to hold on to the court’s conservative majority. The outrageousness of the ploy was matched only by the unlikelihood that it would succeed — until, to virtually everyone’s shock, it did. The destructive lesson Senate Republicans taught is that obstruction pays off.” The piece concludes by stating, “Mr. Trump’s failure to choose a more moderate candidate is the latest example of his refusal to acknowledge his historic unpopularity and his nearly three-million-vote loss to Hillary Clinton. A wiser president faced with such circumstances would govern with humility and a respect for the views of all Americans.” Actually, Clinton didn’t win. The Constitution did. And is there really any doubt that the Times would write in favor of the GOP strategy if the roles were reversed?

The Wall Street Journal editors address these accusations in their own editorial, “The Myth of the Stolen Supreme Court Seat.” The Journal recounts how in 2007, Chuck Schumer warned, “We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances.” Moreover, “The Democratic theft standard goes back further to Joe Biden’s days as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In June 1992 in President George H.W. Bush’s final year, Robber Joe opined that the President ‘should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.’” In other words, contrary to what the Times’ claims, the only thing Republicans are guilty of is being a copycat. “Judge Gorsuch is such a distinguished nominee that he ought to be confirmed 100-0,” the Journal adds, “but if Democrats try and fail to defeat him, the world should know that they are the authors of their own political frustration.”

We’d only add that Democrats also have Barack Obama to blame. He’s the ultimate reason for the Democrat Party’s terrible election performances and the reason they aren’t in control today. By the way, the results may not be as partisan as Democrat leadership expects. A few left-leaning senators like Joe Manchin, John Tester, Mark Warner, Chris Coons and Tim Kaine are at least entertaining the idea of backing the nominee. Tester says, “There’s certain people that want me to vote yes and certain people want me to vote no. So you know, we’ll do our due diligence.” Warner expressed a similar sentiment: “I want to do my own due diligence.” Coons, for his part, added, “I don’t represent just progressives. I don’t represent just progressive Delaware.” This should be an interesting showdown that will reveal those who can see through the rhetoric.