Who set the precedent?

I have to chuckle a bit at Christian Schneider’s near-sighted statement in his March 26 column about the possible filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee (“Dems’ filibuster is a charade,” Crossroads).

It appears during the heart of his argument he conveniently couldn’t see that the Republican Party began this political foolishness.

Schneider wrote: “If Democrats set this precedent, it could forever change the way Supreme Court nominees are handled. There will be Democratic presidents in the future, and when their nominees are treated as shabbily as (Neil) Gorsuch has been, historians will have no further than this moment to look.”

If you switch the word “Republican” for “Democrat” and “Gorsuch” for “Garland” the statement above easily takes us back to last spring and the Republican’s complete disregard for our Constitution in the nomination process. The statement becomes “If Republicans set this precedent, it could forever change the way Supreme Court nominees are handled. There will be Republican presidents in the future, and when their nominees are treated as shabbily as Garland has been, historians will have no further than this moment to look.”

In this, as in other situations, neither party has been acting in the long-term best interests of our democracy. It is amusing, but sad, that some of our most intelligent writers spend so much space cherry picking information to support their opinions when they could be enlightening and educating the rest of us on the facets of complex issues.

I’m sure this is one reason I find myself reading less and less of some writers’ bylines.

Steve Griffith Sheboygan