The Wall Street Journal and New York Times on the Nuclear Option: 2005 vs. 2013

The Wall Street Journal and New York Times on the Nuclear Option: 2005 vs. 2013

Ah, hypocrisy!

In some ways the internet level of debate is demeaning and base, but one nice thing about the web is that nobody can get away with any shenanigans, because millions of people are fact-checking every detail. The two powerful newspapers have held exactly opposite positions during both periods, but they have switched positions in 2013.

The 2005 NY Times position, when they were opposed to the nuclear option:

"The filibuster's existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes. The sense that there are certain rules that all must play by, whether to their advantage or not, is something that cannot be restored. The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. While the filibuster has not traditionally been used to stop judicial confirmations, it seems to us this is a matter in which it's most important that a large minority of senators has a limited right of veto."

And this is what the WSJ wrote in 2005, when they defended the nuclear option:

The nuclear option "should really be called the "majority-vote advice-and-consent" option. The aim is to restore the Founders' intent when they gave the Senate the responsibility of confirming or rejecting a President's judicial picks. The Constitution requires a simple majority vote and says nothing about a super-majority of 60 being needed to stop a filibuster."

In essence, each of these papers could have printed the others' editorial from 2005, and it would be nearly identical to what they actually did print in 2013!