This "sacred" duty of appointing a Supreme Court Justice to fill a vacancy we keep hearing about hasn't always been so sacred in the eyes of Democrats. From the time that Bork got Borked, it's been a habit for Democrats to block judicial appointments at every level. Likewise Democrat appointments have been blocked. But when it comes to the Supreme Court, we have a very specific and recent example of someone prominent in this discussion who was absolutely determined to prevent a vote on a Supreme Court nominee. That person was President Obama, who tried to block Justice Alito via a filibuster.

The importance of the fact that it was a filibuster is clear. The language line our "definition of is" party is trying to walk is that Republicans are uniquely wrong because they don't just intend to vote against an Obama nominee, but they are intentionally preventing Obama from getting any nominee at all. Which was, you see, exactly the point of the filibuster.

Now it is 2016 and there is a vacancy and everyone is rending garments and gnashing teeth about obstructionist Republicans, all while filibuster-in-chief is the one who is going to be making the appointment. Enter the Josh Earnest spin machine:

OH, WELL THEN! HE REGRETS IT. C'est la vie! Que sera, sera. He tried to do it, but now he's all "my bad, you guys." I mean, I'm satisfied. Are you? Someone call Mitch McConnell! Both parties are at fault, says Obama, and he regrets totally being a part of that. But now, well now it's different. Sacred and what have you.

Give me a break.