There’s a saying, attributed to Woody Allen, that “showing up is 80 percent of life.” Dahlia Lithwick suggested in a Tuesday piece that showing up might be even more important for Merrick Garland if he wants to become a Supreme Court justice. Lithwick semi-seriously wrote that if “by the end of September of 2016” Senate Republicans still haven’t given Garland a hearing, he “should simply suit up and take the vacant seat at the court."

By doing so, Lithwick claimed, Garland “would be achieving two vital goals: First, he would be doing his job and highlighting that this is precisely what Senate tantrum throwers are refusing to do. But second, he would be…bravely standing up for [the constitutional] principle [of] effective government…That principle is not something as ignoble as ‘we’ll blow up the court before we let it shift to the other side,’ which looks more like hostage-taking than taking a stand…Advise and consent doesn’t mean that the NRA or the Koch brothers get a veto.”



Neither political party can lay claim to purity when it comes to hypocrisy, but Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, as well as others in her party, has taken hypocrisy to new depths.



Whenever I hear the words "centrist" or "moderate," especially when they come from The New York Times and The Washington Post, the words "liberal" and "cover-up" immediately come to mind.



Three Pinocchios. That's the grade the liberal-leaning Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler gave to Democrats' claims that Republicans' plans to bottle up Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme court were an abrogation of their constitutional duty.



While discussing President Obama’s appointment of D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward emphasized on Fox News Sunday that while Garland would provide a fifth vote for liberals in cases before the Court, but was someone who’s “not really partisan in anyway.”



NBC Meet the Press host Chuck Todd clearly brought the Tim Russert tactics to his interview with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who bizarrely claimed his career has been dedicated to preventing obstruction. Todd played a 2005 Reid clip: “The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote.” Then he noted: “And yet, 11 years later, you wrote this: ‘The Senate's constitutional duty to give a fair and timely hearing and a floor vote to the president's Supreme Court nominee has remained inviolable.'"



The media campaign to replace the conservative late Justice Antonin Scalia with an Obama appointee has begun.  

It won’t be pretty. Republicans will be accused in the media -- actually they are already being accused -- of being “obstructionists” and worse in blocking the appointment of Judge Merrick Garland.  But how did it get this way with the media, Democrats and Supreme Court nominations in the first place?



On the regular "Shields and Brooks" on Friday's PBS NewsHour, it was another case of a liberal analyst and a faux-conservative agreeing with each other as allegedly right-leaning New York Times columnist David Brooks gushed over U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, calling him "an excellent choice," a "model of judicial restraint," and "a man of both amazing integrity and capacity to be emotionally moved" as he urged confirmatiin since a President Hillary Clinton would likely nominate someone who "from a Republican point-of-view, could be a lot worse."



"Democrats often have the media on their side because of liberal bias."

That sounds like a very common complaint among conservatives. However, that is exactly what liberal Mark Halperin stated yesterday on Bloomberg's With All Due Respect when he admitted the very obvious. This admission came during a discussion about how the Senate refusing to hold hearings on President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court will supposedly help Democrats. In fact Halperin and co-host John Heileman were practically leaping for joy in their belief in how this issue will damage Republicans in the upcoming Senate elections. Perhaps it was this anticipatory glee that caused Halperin to let down his guard and make his surprising admission about liberal media bias.



Does anyone remember how The Onion "humorously" satirized then-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's refusal to consider the federal court nomination of Miguel Estrada in 2003? Oh come on, it was the one where there was an accompanying cartoon showing Daschle holding Estrada's "Severed Head Aloft in Front of the Capitol Building"? That was just a laugh riot, wasn't it?

Of course, no one remembers it, because it didn't happen — and the establishment press would still be in mass hysteria over it if it had. But on Wednesday, The Onion, now not so coincidentally 40 percent-owned by Univision, did exactly what I just described with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Merrick Garland, the person President Barack Obama nominated for the Supreme Court earlier in the day (HT Instapundit):



Referring to GOP senators vowing to not hold hearings for President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, MSNBC's Chris Matthews suggested racism may be to blame. "Do you think this is another one of those boots in the face of the president on the racial front?" the Hardball host asked African-American White House correspondent April Ryan on the March 16 edition of the program.



With President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee announcement, the liberal media rushed to label Judge Merrick Garland a moderate and hammer Senate Republicans as obstructionists. It was no different on Thursday’s Morning Joe. “From the get-go, the Republicans have been saying no before they even knew what it was the President was going to put out.” Said co-host Mika Brzezinski clearly agitated. “You see it know with the Supreme Court nominee. Again.