Not one of his most careful posts. First, he praises our December editorial suggesting that it would be unwise to make a formal rules change. He introduces a quote from it thus: “Here’s an elegant argument that both decries the Democrats’ tactics against judicial nominees and yet resists the filibuster.” Surely he meant “and yet resists getting rid of the judicial filibuster”? Then he quotes the editorial and suggests we’ve flip-flopped. But the quoted material hardly justifies that claim. The quoted material suggests that filibusters of judicial nominees are constitutionally permissible. The magazine hasn’t said anything to the contrary. Indeed, the latest editorial–the alleged occasion of the flip-flop–restates that very point: “Almost everything else in the debate is a diversion. The text of the Constitution does not forbid the Senate to let the majority confirm judges, as Democrats preposterously insist; nor does it require it” (emphasis added).

[UPDATE: On second thought, I’m probably being too tough on Sullivan–he doesn’t seem to have been slamming us, which is the impression I left.]