On his show tonight, Sean Hannity said it was “numbing” that Elena Kagan “cannot say no” to Sen. Tom Coburn's question about whether the federal government could mandate what kind of food people should eat. As Hannity noted, the question does have parallels to the health care reform law and possible legal challenges to the constitutionality of the law that could come before the Supreme Court. In other words, Kagan declined to directly respond on an issue that could come before her, should her nomination be successful.

In 2005, when John Roberts and Samuel Alito were the nominees and the president was a Republican, Hannity had a very different view on Supreme Court nominees giving their opinions on issues that might appear before the court. In fact, there are several instances of Hannity complaining that he believed Democrats should have applied the so-called “Ginsburg rule” (most Republicans referred to it as the “Ginsburg precedent”) to Roberts and Alito, where specific questions relating to court issues were allowed to remain unanswered.

From the October 31, 2005 edition of Hannity & Colmes (Nexis):

HANNITY: I guess where I am on this, if you look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I mean, she -- the Ginsburg rule, she doesn't have to answer specific questions, clearly pro-choice going in, thinks there may even be a constitutional right to polygamy, has a controversial view we should lower the age of consent to 12, supports legalized prostitution, very left-wing.

MCCAIN: Yes.

HANNITY: And somebody -- a moderate conservative like yourself said, “I give the benefit of the doubt to George Bush.”

MCCAIN: Yes.

HANNITY: You hear people like Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid today, the standard does not exist. It is not being applied to Samuel Alito the way it was applied to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

From the August 25, 2005 edition of Hannity & Colmes (Nexis):

MICHAEL BROWN (DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST): They go through every document, every sentence ever written, every speech that someone has given. And this is just what happens. This is the nature of the game in the United States Senate.

HANNITY: With all due respect, it's not the nature of what happened with Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We have what's called the Ginsburg rule. With the exception of abortion -- and she was appointed by a Democrat -- she answered -- she did not -- she chose not to answer 40 questions about specific issues that may come before the court.

Her words were, “My rule: No hints, no forecasts, no previews.” Now, even though she said those things, and she didn't answer those questions, Republicans overwhelmingly gave President Clinton his choice. Shouldn't the Democrats apply the same rule to John Roberts?

BROWN: Well, I think the same rules, the same standard of diligence. And what happens is, the same kind of thing goes on, Sean, on the other side of the aisle. I obviously disagree with you. This, again, occurs every single time. Every speech, every word that's uttered is always scrutinized.

HANNITY: You're not listening, Michael.

BROWN: I'm listening very clearly to you, Sean. The difference is...

HANNITY: Well, then you're not hearing what I'm saying.

BROWN: Judge Roberts, what's happened is -- Sean...

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: The standard was not -- what you are saying, and what you want to apply here, did not apply to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And here's the problem. Here's the problem.

From the August 23, 2005 edition of Hannity & Colmes (Nexis):

HANNITY: Maybe he can give me a preview of what I can expect. The Ginsburg rule -- no hints, no previews, no clues whatsoever. She didn't answer 40 specific questions, former ACLU general counsel, woman who supported legalized prostitution, and even the idea or the possibility of polygamy, that could be a constitutional right, she was approved by an overwhelming majority of Republicans here.

That standard, that Ginsburg rule, is not being applied in the case of John Roberts, as is evidenced by Dianne Feinstein's comments today.

From the August 17, 2005 edition of Hannity & Colmes (Nexis):

HANNITY: You know something? You know, I know you're not going to admit this, Eleanor, but your party has been cooperated by the hard left. MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, they're basically all one and the same as far as I see it.But you know something? G. Gordon is right. Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't have to answer tough questions on important issues. She invoked the Ginsburg rule. It's a woman who once supported the idea of legalized prostitution, was open to the idea of a constitutional right towards polygamy, and the Republicans voted for her.Why won't the Democrats be fair and offer the same standard that they offered her?

From the August 16, 2005 edition of Hannity & Colmes (Nexis):

HANNITY: Hey, Mary Ann Marsh, I want to know if you support the Ginsburg rule, where she said, no hints, no forecasts, no previews -- the very rule, by the way, that Ted Kennedy supported with Thurgood Marshall, that no candidate should have to answer specific questions about specific issues that are likely to appear before the court. Should John Roberts have the same standard?

[...]

HANNITY: You're avoiding my question. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, no, wouldn't give any hints. No forecast 39 times.

Ted Kennedy defended Thurgood Marshall's right not to answer specific questions about these things.

Now you liberals, when it's a Republican president, you want to change the rules. Isn't that what this is about, a double standard?

As I documented yesterday, both Roberts and Alito declined to answer numerous questions during their confirmation hearings. This wasn't a problem for Hannity -- in fact he argued in favor of this option several times. But now that the parties of the nominating president have changed, Hannity is playing a completely different tune.