The Post’s case against Pryor is awfully thin. It’s impermissible for a nominee to think that the appointment of Justice Souter was a mistake? To think that the 5-4 result in Bush v. Gore might have the salutary effect of reminding people how important judicial appointments are? To support “states’ rights,” or at least to do so more “aggressively” than the dainty editors of the Post would like? None of these positions establishes what the Post asserts they establish: that Pryor’s view of the judicial function is “overtly political.” The Post’s own politicized view of judging does not cease to exist simply because it is hidden (perhaps even to itself, so lost in editorial pretension are its writers).