The always tendentious NYT

You would think that a paper recently embroiled in a journalism scandal would be a little more careful on their editorial page, the conscious of the paper. But the New York Times seems unperturbed and launches into this intellectually dishonest account of the judicial filibusters in the Senate.

Just to focus on one half-truth - and I could do a full-blown fisking on this editorial - the NYT believes the Advice and Consent clause of the Constitution gives Democrats the right to filibuster. But the filibuster is a parliamentary procedure to force more debate. And it would be fine if the Senate Democrats gave any kind of indication that they want to debate on Bush's judicial nominees. However (as NRO's Byron York has noted) when Senators were invited to submit questions to the candidates, none were submitted. The Senate Democrats are singularly uninterested in further debate. But they won't allow the whole Senate to vote.

If the Democrats don't like a candidate and think he/she hasn't answered questions, then vote against that candidate. But to deny the full Senate a straight up-or-down vote is tyranny of the minority.