Last Monday, I predicted, based on two op-ed pieces decrying the Senate's filibuster, that the New York Times editorial page would soon follow with an editorial attacking the GOP for using the filibuster. Today, the Times, proved me right.

And if there was any question on whether the Times is partisan or principled, they answered that too.

A filibuster can be an appropriate response when it is clear that a particular nominee would be a dangerous addition to the bench. The Republicans’ rush to threaten filibusters in the absence of actual nominees is not only at odds with their previous views on the subject, but shows a lack of respect for the confirmation process.

In other words, filibusters are good when they prevent judges who the Times doesn't like from taking the bench, and bad when they prevent judges the Times does like from taking the bench.

As James Taranto notes:

There is nothing more to this argument than that the ends justify the means--in which case why bother making an obviously phony argument about the means?

Because they're the New York Times and they haven't figured out this Internet thing yet where their hypocrisy can be put on public display for posterity.