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...
If Slate published it, it supports their world view, regardless of who wrote it. Witness your citation of it to "refute" my point about the relative merits of the large block of filibusters versus the individual counter examples cited by the demonrats. I acknowledge your point, that Paez was approved by a majority, but I will not relinquish the larger issue of demonrats raping the constitution by mounting an unprecedented en mass filibuster.
Slate has published quotes from both Ronald Reagan and Jesus Christ. I obviously don't disagree with either of them in the general case, in the abstract, but I reserve the right to question the use of their writings for evil purposes.
And Mickey Kaus ain't no Ronald Reagan and he sure isn't in the same universe as Jesus Christ.