Political hypocrisy is a more subtle thing than some give it credit for. Lawyers understand the difference between a judicial holding - what a court decides - and a judicial opinion - what a court SAYS about what it has decided. Opinions are useful, but the facts remain the facts, and the precedential value of a case relates to its facts, not to the words of the opinion.

Thus, as GOP senator are now pointing out, the historical practice regarding late-term appointments has largely turned on whether the President and Senate majority are of the same or different parties. The facts suggest that the arguments now being made by Republicans are consistent with that precedent.

The "hypocrisy" arises because the principle of party alignment was not cited by the Republicans in 2016. They didn't cite that principle because it sound so, well, partisan, and there was no reason to cite that principle when they could rely on "Let the people decide." Now, they need the alignment principle, so they are arguing it. But their actions (as opposed to their words) are completely consistent with historical practice, and in politics, "hypocrisy" is better defined as deviation from prior practice rather than picking the best tactical "explanation."

That's not to say that the GOP don't deserve the shellacking I hope they get. In my view, any politician who has not denounced Trump from day one is, in at least colloquial terms, a traitor, a stooge for Putin's stooge. And certainly, those who did denounce him in 2016 but kissed his ring in 2017 are hypocrites of the worst kind, not for their words, but for their deeds.

Indeed, the precision of "hypocrite" seems to me too narrow. These are awful leaders, cowards when we needed heroes. Shame on them. And on the 40% of us who don't care.