It goes without saying that the mantra of The New York Times Editorial Pages is "All the Leftist Propaganda That’s Fit to Print." But sometimes the newspaper’s transparent knee-jerk liberalism shocks even us.

Take, for example, the Gray Lady’s political hypocrisy when it comes to appointment of federal judges:

Three years ago, when Bill Clinton bypassed the confirmation process by appointing Roger Gregory to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit while the Senate was in recess, the Times’ Editorial Board praised that President’s decisive action, stating that "Clinton rightly moved to address … the refusal by Congress to consider judicial nominees with reasonable dispatch." The newspaper went on to note that the vacancy filled by Judge Gregory had been declared "a judicial emergency" and that "Congress should act expeditiously … to reconsider its overall negligence in filling vacancies on the federal bench."

What a difference a change in administrations can make.

With the current occupant of the White House, the Times took a much different view this past week when President George W. Bush used the recess appointment power to install Judge Charles Pickering, Sr., on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit while the Senate was again in recess. According to the Times’ latest editorial contortion, the recess appointment of Judge Pickering was "‘a finger in the eye’ for all those seeking fairness in the [judicial] nomination process." Never mind that Judge Pickering also filled a vacancy that had been declared a judicial emergency. Never mind that Judge Pickering also waited and waited for the Senate to consider his judicial nomination "with reasonable dispatch." Never mind that President Bush exercised the exact same power employed by Bill Clinton three years earlier to the adulation of the Times.

Consistent in its handling of virtually identical actions by two different Presidents? Not exactly. But perhaps we have been looking for the wrong type of consistency when it comes to the Gray Lady. After all, we can depend on the fact that, for the New York Times, what’s good for the donkey is never good for the elephant.