Judicial double standard

Have White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and commentator Kate O’Beirne been comparing notes? Today, the Washington Post carries an opinion piece by Gonzales about the unanimous Senate approval of Judge John Roberts to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; Gonzales wonders why Miguel Estrada, with a near-identical background to Roberts, can’t get a Senate vote. Concluding paragraph:

The 45 Senate Democrats who are filibustering Estrada's nomination are applying a double standard. There is no rational or legitimate justification for the disparate treatment of Roberts and Estrada -- particularly for the use of an extreme and unprecedented filibuster against Estrada, who would be the first Hispanic to serve on the D.C. Circuit and has the clear support of a majority of senators. The president has asked that the Senate Democrats halt the filibuster, stop the delays and allow an up-or-down vote on Estrada. As the president has said, let each senator vote as he or she thinks best, but end the double standard and give the man a vote.

The Administration lawyer doesn’t overtly accuse Democratic Senators of racism or sexism in their treatment of Miguel Estrada or Priscilla Owen. But O’Beirne was less reserved in her “Outrage of the Week” this past Saturday:

O'BEIRNE: The latest judicial nominee to face vehement opposition from Senate Democrats is Judge Carolyn Kuhl of California Superior Court, nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Threatening another filibuster raises the question of whether Democrats are holding women and minorities, like Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada, and now Kuhl, to a double standard. The complaint against Judge Kuhl, about an abortion case she worked on 17 years ago, was never raised about a male nominee who worked with her on the case.

Women and minorities need not apply?

It’s getting harder to escape that conclusion.