Read Dahlia Lithwick's essay on Miguel Estrada here. Thanks to How Appealing for the link.

After reading Lithwick's essay (which is smart) I went back to my whipping boy for the day, George Will, and found more reasons why he's "on his high horse but on the low road." Comparing Estrada's record to Hugo Black's or Earl Warren's, as Will does, for example, in an attempt to claim that Schumer doesn't know his judicial nominations history, is [wrong. *** I altered this post because what I wrote was not professional in the least. I'm happy to e-mail you the original comment if you'd like. Rule #1: don't write when you're tired and angry.]

Hell, I know more about Black's pre-Supreme Court positions on the New Deal than I do about Estrada's positions on anything. That's not too surprising, either. Just go to the early editions of Vital Speeches, where, for example, you can find at least one stinging speech by Hugo Black defending Social Security from the Liberty-League types who thought that the program would mean the death of capitalism. I'm not making this up. And Earl Warren was a prominent public figure long before he took a position on the Court. Granted, we may not like the pre-nomination Earl Warren in all respects (as in, he clamored for internment), but Senators knew very important things about him. And, hey, what a coincidence: he also gave at least one "vital speech" that you can read here. Black and Warren were political beings and made no bones about it. Estrada, on the other hand, tries to give the impression of having sprung, Athena-like, from the collective head of the Framers, pure and armed for faithful and decent judicial battle. Suffice it to say, Estrada has given no "vital speeches."

And Will's selective memory concerning the Federalist Papers needs to be underlined: I fail to see how Will could whip out Hamilton's Federalist 76 standard for Senate refusal of nominees (Senators should reject "unfit characters" only) and claim that it jives with his earlier counseling of Republican Senators to reject Clinton nominee Bill Lan Lee for reasons of political "payback."

I quote from Will's hypocritical advice to reject Lee below. You can find the editorial itself on Lexis-Nexis. It sure would be nice to be able to learn about Miguel Estrada by logging on to Lexis-Nexis. Or by flipping through the pages of Vital Speeches.

But you can't. That's a problem.