The Washington Times published a column attacking Democrats for supposedly making the Supreme Court nomination process partisan and encouraging Republicans to consider rejecting any nominee “who rejects the jurisprudence of originalism.” But apparently, the Times did not even do a basic fact-check of the column, for it makes a seemingly obvious error: It asserts that former Justice David Souter is one of “the court's four liberals” even though he retired last year.

The column, by Melbourne University fellow Daniel Mandel, stated:

The court presently is split 4-4 between liberals and conservatives, with the ninth, swinging justice, Anthony Kennedy, often casting a decisive vote one way or the other. Conservatives are thus concerned at the prospects of liberals in time obtaining a majority on the Supreme Court.

[...]

Mr. Levin's third suggestion, however, has a point: Republicans, should they recover a Senate majority, as could possibly occur in November, must vote down any proposed judge “who rejects the jurisprudence of originalism.” This advice runs somewhat counter to traditional conservative impulses, which have been to engender bipartisanship over nominations and to confirm liberal nominees providing they have requisite judicial experience.

The record speaks clearly of this: Two of the court's four liberals were nominated by Republican presidents and confirmed with a large, indeed overwhelming, measure of Republican support. John Paul Stevens, nominated by Gerald Ford in 1975, confirmed 98-0 by the Senate, and David Souter, nominated by George H.W. Bush in 1990, confirmed 90-9 by the Senate. While on the subject, the court's swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, was nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and confirmed 97-0.

In fact, Souter retired last year and was replaced by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Maybe this is another example of what the Times staff cut-backs have wrought.