The same right-wing media figures who are condemning presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s racist diatribes against a federal judge previously demanded that Senate Republicans obstruct the Supreme Court nomination process in hopes of a Republican winning the White House in November. Do they still think Trump should fill the seat?

Trump has dug in on his latest racist tirades against Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge involved in a Trump U. lawsuit, after initially attacking his “Mexican heritage” as “an inherent conflict of interest” in the case given Trump’s pledges to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Trump has reportedly ordered his surrogates to double down and continue to “question the judge’s credibility” because of his ethnicity.

At the same time, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland now enters his 83rd day of awaiting Senate confirmation hearings.

A host of right-wing media figures and outlets have rushed to condemn Trump’s broadsides against Curiel. Yet those same conservative media figures demanded that the Republican-led Senate block Judge Garland’s Supreme Court nomination until after the presidential election in hopes of a Republican -- and now specifically, Trump, given that he’s the presumptive GOP presidential nominee -- winning the White House.

Newt Gingrich, a Fox News contributor and rumored potential Trump running mate, notably slammed Trump’s comments against Curiel as “inexcusable” and “one of the worst mistakes Trump has made.” Yet in February, Gingrich adamantly demanded that Senate Republicans “refuse to hold hearings” on Garland in hopes that “the next president” could nominate a Supreme Court justice.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board recently slammed Trump for his “reprehensible,” “odious,” and “racist” attacks on Curiel, imploring Trump to “apologize to the judge” for “his equation of ethnicity with bias.” But following Justice Scalia’s death, the board praised Republican leaders for blocking Garland’s nomination and urged the public to “ignore any complaints” about GOP obstruction.

Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer said Trump’s “menacing” attacks on Curiel were “worrying,” yet demanded that Republicans make the “political decision” to “be absolutely united” in blocking Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in hopes of letting the next president fill the seat.

Such hypocrisy runs deep among conservative ranks: Fox senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano has questioned Trump’s attacks on Curiel, but has urged Republicans to “stand firm” in their obstruction of Obama’s nominee. Town Hall political editor Guy Benson called the “rationale behind” Trump’s attacks “simply appalling,” yet previously wrote that Republicans “can and should prevent Obama from replacing Scalia.” The Washington Examiner editorial board slammed Trump’s “indefensible” attacks on Curiel, though earlier this year it urged Republicans to “stand firm” in their obstruction.

Right-wing hypocrisy over the judiciary has not gone unnoticed. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said of Senate Republicans distancing themselves from Trump’s widely condemned comments:

I guess I would just point out that it’s a little ironic for Republicans in the Senate who say they have concerns about the Republican presidential nominee’s views as it relates to judges to also say that they’re not going to confirm any judges to preserve the ability of the Republican presidential nominee to potentially make those appointments.

With Trump now the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, will these right-wing media figures continue to stand by their conviction that Trump is best suited to fill the Supreme Court vacancy?