[votelife]

from the article: "But the Senate has been right to use it against the nomination of Miguel Estrada, who is HIDING his views on legal issues. It should do the same to stop the once-REJECTED Judge Owen, and tell EXTREME conservatives in the Bush administration to stop trying to HIJACK the federal judiciary."

How extremely biased can this paper get?
Did the Times EVER use words like this when Clinton was POTUS? Hijack? This woman got like 80% of the vote in Texas. I guess democracy is only good for the times when it produces liberal results. REJECTED? sure, on a straight party line vote enforced by the abortion squad.

NEVER BUY THE NY TIMES PAPER!

[Pharlap]

Note that the NYT editorial says "the SENATE has been right to use [the filibuster] against the nomination of Miguel Estrada." (Emphasis added) This statement is a total distortion. If the Senate opposed (rather than a minority of senate Democrats) the nomination there would be no need for a filibuster. There simply would be a vote and the nomination would be defeated. It is precisely because the SENATE does not oppose the nomination that the Democrat minority has launched a filibuster.