“Discrediting perfectly qualified nominees to the federal judiciary is a dreary, familiar business,” observes a Boston Globe house editorial in support of D.C. Circuit nominee Caitlin Halligan, who will have a cloture vote on her nomination at noon today. That business ought to be especially familiar to the Globe editorial board, as it has engaged in it itself.
Here’s one apt example: In February 2003, the Globe cited Miguel Estrada’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit as its lead piece of evidence that the Senate Judiciary Committee “is approving President Bush’s federal court nominees at speeds that defy common sense.” (For whatever reason, I haven’t been able to locate the editorial online, other than via Nexis.) Never mind that Estrada was nominated in May 2001, some twenty months earlier. That same editorial contended that Estrada wasn’t “providing enough information” for the Globe “to be sure” how to evaluate Estrada’s positions on workers’ rights, abortion, and civil rights, and it praised the “choir” of “Democrats, civil rights groups, labor groups, and women’s groups” that were attacking Estrada.