Strike 1
He was confirmed to the Bozo court (9th circuit).
Strike 2
Opposition to him was characterized (in the link you provide) as "a long-overdue ethnic triumph in the face of Republican obstructionism" while opposition to Bush appointees who are black, hispanic or asian is cast as "opposing extremists."
Strike 3
I regret to inform you that your example is doo doo and confirmation of extremist demonrat leftist hypocrisy.
Only much further down in the story, long after it has jumped to the innards of the paper--and after we've been told that the GOP opposition to Paez might be used against presidential candidate George Bush--does Simon give any hint that Republicans might have actually had a reason for opposing Paez other than his ethnicity, namely that he was a "judicial activist."
The evidence to back up this complaint wasn't overwhelming, but even the Washington Post editorial page, which ultimately supported Paez, admitted it was "not entirely frivolous." Paez a) had given a speech criticizing the initiative that later ended racial preferences in California, calling it "the proposed anti-civil rights initiative" and strongly hinting--since judges exist in part to enforce civil rights--that he'd strike it down; b) had explained his sense of the appropriate judicial role by saying, "I appreciate ... the need of the courts to act, when they must, when the issue results from the failure of the political process to resolve a certain question"; and c) had struck down as a violation of free speech a Los Angeles ordinance against aggressive panhandling. Everyone concedes that Paez is one of the more liberal judges nominated by Clinton...