Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Larry Elder laid into Democrat lawmakers in a blistering op-ed on Wednesday over their hypocrisy in the aftermath of the death of SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Donald Trump’s plan to nominate a replacement on Saturday, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s commitment to successfully see the nominee confirmed — prior to the election.

In the Creators op-ed, Elder first laid out a “mind experiment.”

“It is September 2016,” he wrote. “Democrats control the United States Senate, 54-44, with two independents who caucus with the Democrats. In the upcoming election, 24 Democratic seats are in play, versus 10 Republican seats.”

“Therefore, the Democrats’ continued control over the Senate is anything but a foregone conclusion. The same, of course, is true about the presidency.

“Now imagine that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suddenly dies some 50 days before the election, providing President Barack Obama with an opportunity to dramatically redirect the court by replacing a ‘conservative’ justice with a ‘progressive.’

“But NPR’s Supreme Court reporter, Nina Totenberg, reports that, on Thomas’ deathbed, he told a family member, ‘My fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.’

“Citing ‘the principle of fairness,’ Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell requests that Obama not submit a successor nominee and that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer not hold confirmation hearings until after the election.

And what would happen? Elder nailed it: “Cue the laughter.”

Larry Elder Column: 'Democrats Want Trump Not To Nominate RBG's Successor–Cue the Laughter'https://t.co/t6v63U9gOo#RBG

— Larry Elder (@larryelder) September 24, 2020

Script flipped. Perfectly.

“In reality,” Elder continued, “Ruth Bader Ginsburg just died.” He then laid out what Democrat lawmakers would do. Which is what we know they would do. Which is what they know we know they would do.

“The notion that Democrats, if they controlled the White House and the Senate, would not seek to immediately replace her before the election is absolutely, positively hysterical.

“This is a party whose Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, stood on the floor in the Senate in the thick of Obama’s 2012 race for reelection and knowingly, falsely accused Republican opponent Mitt Romney of not paying taxes for a decade.

“After retiring from the Senate, Reid admitted he lied. Asked whether he regretted lying about Romney, Reid said, ‘Well … Romney didn’t win, did he?’”

That is who the Democrat Party is.

Speaking of Harry Reid, Elder jumped into the way-back machine to revisit Reid’s killing of the filibuster — which then-Minority Leader McConnell warned about at the time and has reminded the Democrats of in the wake of RBG’s death.

“In 2013, Democrats controlled the Senate, and they ended use of the filibuster, a practice allowed for 100 years for purposes of confirmation hearings on all executive branch nominees and for most judicial nominees.

“At the time, McConnell warned: ‘The majority leader promised, he promised over and over again, that he wouldn’t break the rules of the Senate in order to change them.

“‘If you want to play games and set yet another precedent that you’ll no doubt come to regret, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you’ll regret this — and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.’”

Oh, how those chickens come home to roost.

Elder included comments made by Joe Biden in 2016 when McConnell refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland, nominated by Barack Obama in the final year of his presidency. Again, chickens.

Biden literally went on to the Senate floor in the 1990s and said that the Senate should not vote on a Supreme Court nominee if the President was from the opposing party.

It’s the “Biden Rule.”

Now he’s saying he never said that? 🤔 https://t.co/2pIVBWIzZp

— Andrew Clark 🎃 (@AndrewHClark) September 20, 2020

Biden being Biden:

“’So now I hear all this talk about the Biden rule. It’s frankly ridiculous. There is no Biden rule. It doesn’t exist. There’s only one rule I ever followed on the Judiciary Committee; that was the Constitution’s clear rule of advice and consent.

“‘Article 2 of the Constitution clearly states, whenever there is a vacancy in one of the courts created by the Constitution itself, the Supreme Court of the United States, the president shall— not may — the president shall appoint someone to fill the vacancy with the advice and consent of the United States Senate.

“‘And advice and consent includes consulting and voting.’”

Yeah, well, how quickly they forget.

Elder closed with another quote that has not aged well for the Democrats — this one from Ginsburg.

“Finally, here is Ginsburg in 2016 on whether a Supreme Court vacancy should be filled during an election year: ‘That’s their job. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.’ A few months later, she said, ‘Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees.’”

“We agree,” Elder wrote. “Let’s grant her that wish.”

Words mean things. More importantly, the U.S. Constitution means things, In this case, how it specifically lays out the process for filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Now that McConnell has the votes, Democrat lawmakers appear to left with only one option — doing what Democrats do best:

Whine about how “unfair” the evil Republicans are.

If they need any advice on how to really whine, I”m sure Hillary is available as a coach. For a “yuuge” fee, of course.