A couple additional thoughts:
1. When it’s convenient for them, Senate Democrats pretend that the ABA’s judicial evaluation of a nominee is the “gold standard”. When it’s inconvenient, they ignore the evaluation. (Lest I be accused of the same selectivity, let me make my position clear: The ABA, as a rule, is not friendly (I’m not saying that it should be), and is sometimes affirmatively hostile (it shouldn’t be), towards judicial nominations by the Bush Administration. Therefore, a positive ABA rating for a Bush nominee is far more probative than a negative ABA rating.)
The ABA judicial-evaluations committee unanimously awarded Leslie Southwick its highest “well qualified” rating. Under its usual procedures, it awarded that rating after conducting a thorough investigation of Southwick, including confidential interviews with his judicial colleagues, attorneys who have practiced before him, and lots of other folks who know him well.
A specific component of the ABA’s investigation is whether the nominee has “freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice under the law.” If the ABA’s investigation yielded any evidence that Southwick is, as the Left’s scurrilous misrepresentation of one opinion he joined (the Richmond case) contends, racist or racially insensitive, it is inconceivable that the ABA would have awarded him its highest rating.
2. People for the American Way has known for more than two months that its account of the Richmond case is wildly inaccurate. (It’s clear that PFAW has been following my posts on Southwick.) Yet, so far as I can tell, it has never taken a single step to correct its account. That sorry approach is, unfortunately, PFAW’s modus operandi. And, so long as trusting (i.e., naïve) reporters and puppet Democratic senators parrot PFAW’s lies, PFAW has no incentive (beyond an apparently non-existent concern for its own non-existent integrity) to speak truthfully.