The Sun has developed a bad case of selective memory when it comes to judicial nominations ("Judicial profiling," June 5).
When President George W. Bush nominated candidates for judgeships during the years that Republicans controlled the Senate, the Harry Reid-led Democrats, for the first time in history, filibustered several of them, including a Hispanic nominee for the same D.C. Court of Appeals they are complaining about today.
There was no cry of outrage from The Sun then about this shameful practice, nor was there any attempt by The Sun to play the race card, despite compelling evidence that the filibuster was done solely to prevent Mr. Bush from appointing a Hispanic to a high-profile judgeship.
What is truly shameful is that The Sun's sense of outrage seems to depend solely on who's ox is being gored, and its playing of the race card is despicable.
When a Republican is elected president and has a Republican majority in the Senate, I wonder how fast The Sun will want to see judicial nominees filibustered. As the saying goes, what goes around comes around.
If this practice is to ever come to an end, perhaps President Obama should nominate one or more of the judges that he wrongfully blocked from being confirmed while he was in the Senate. That would be the right thing to do, but it's also why it won't happen.
Robert C. Erlandson, LuthervilleCopyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun