The Washington Post’s editorials on judging are usually quite reasonable compared to the New York Times’s (not that that alone is saying much), but today’s disappoints. The Post makes the same errors of misunderstanding what “bipartisanship” could plausibly mean, of complaining about the President’s entirely appropriate resubmission of nominations, and of making summary dismissals of the nominees’ qualifications (though the Post’s rhetoric is far less screeching than NYT’s).
To its credit, the Post states that D.C. Circuit nominee Peter Keisler “certainly warrants confirmation.” Yet it undercuts itself with the odd observation that the dispute over the proper number of D.C. Circuit seats “ought to be decided” before President Bush nominates anyone to the D.C. Circuit. For present purposes, that matter has been decided: section 44(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that the D.C. Circuit shall have 12 judges. Unless and until Congress changes that, what good reason is there not to confirm Keisler to the 11th seat?