The phrase – that was then and now is now – comes to mind as we watch the debate in Washington, D.C over a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Republicans say, no, the replacement should be named by the next president, which, they contend, would give Americans a chance to weigh on the selection.

Democrats, led by President Barack Obama, say, wait, a president is required to nominate persons for vacancies on the top court and, therefore, Obama should make the nomination.

The debate plays out, of course, against the backdrop of the one of the most contentious presidential primary seasons in memory – or even, perhaps, in the history of this country. In that context, the battle over Scalia’s replacement could take center stage in the campaign for months.

And, it will be even more critical because the court, without Scalia, tends to be split 4 to 4 between those labeled conservative and those labeled liberal. Thus, the new appointee, whomever he or she is, could be expected to break the tie and play a leading role in momentous court decisions.

Back to the phrase – that was then and now is now.

The best example of this is a recent Wall Street Journal editorial which pointed out the absolute duplicity of Senator Chuck Schumer, who is favored to become Senate Minority Leader in the next Congress (that is, if Republicans retain control of the Senate).

Here is the editorial.

***************

The New Schumer Precedent

Chuck tries to hoist himself off his own petard on Supreme Court nominees.

Supreme Court vacancies tend to showcase political consistency—or lack thereof. So it is amusing to watch how thoroughly New York Senator Chuck Schumer has been reduced to self-parody as he tries to excuse his 2007 demand that Democrats reject, sight unseen, any of George W. Bush’s nominees “if—God forbid—there is another vacancy under this President” during the last 18 months of his Administration.

In a post on Medium, the Majority-Leader-in-waiting now claims that his 2007 speech was little more than a suggestion that “Democrats, after a hearing, should entertain voting no if the nominee is out of the mainstream and tries to cover that fact up. There was no hint anywhere in the speech that there shouldn’t be hearings or a vote.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Schumer, his own words were on the record and are online. Consider this somewhat less than subtle hint: “I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances.” The emphasis is Mr. Schumer’s in his prepared remarks.

Mr. Schumer never said that nominees were entitled to a hearing much less an up-or-down vote, and along with then-Senator Barack Obama he joined a filibuster of now-Justice Samuel Alito in 2005. Among the Senator’s major themes at the time was that the confirmation hearings process is of “limited usefulness” and “often meaningless.”

Mr. Schumer’s anything-goes approach also included a call to “reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” If he were consistent, Mr. Schumer would now be demanding that Mr. Obama nominate, in the name of “balance,” a like-minded conservative jurist to replace Antonin Scalia. At least Mr. Schumer is entertaining.

****************

Like many others, Schumer views things one way at one point and then, without apparent difficulty, goes exactly the opposite way at another point. Such is the life of politics when principle doesn’t prevail.

You could no doubt point out duplicity on the part of Republicans, as well.

So, I say a pox on both parties. Let’s find leaders like the late Senator Mark Hatfield who put principle before expediency. That way we’d have a genuine battle over a Supreme Court justice, one that would benefit the country in the lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.