It would be difficult to find a more one-sided and sycophantic account than this Indiana Law Journal online commentary on “Judicial Selection in Congress’ Lame Duck Session” by Richmond law professor Carl Tobias.

By Tobias’s account, the Obama White House has steadfastly pursued the nomination of “accomplished, consensus, diverse prospects” (emphasis added). Yes, even D.C. Circuit appointee Cornelia Pillard is presented as though she were an uncontroversial “mainstream” pick. Indeed, “the vast majority of trial level prospects have been nominated because they are competent, uncontroversial, and diverse, rather than ideologically aligned with the President” (emphasis added). Who knew that this White House was so non-ideological?

Tobias damns Senate Republicans at every turn but repeatedly shows himself incapable of providing fair context. For example: Republican “machinations propelled Democrats to release the ‘nuclear option,’” he declares—without any mention of Democrats’ unprecedented (and far more numerous) resort to partisan filibusters. Similarly, he faults Republicans for exercising the same procedural rights (e.g., holdover in committee) that Democrats routinely exercised against Republican nominees.

I wonder if Tobias had a previous career as an editor of Pravda. Indeed, much of his prose reads like a bad translation from Russian: e.g., “Republican obstruction instigated the most open positions the longest time”; “Activities must begin immediately to facilitate endeavors when Congress returns.”