A news article in today's Washington Times warned President Obama not to name someone for the Supreme Court who is “viewed as extreme on abortion or other key issues.” If Obama did not heed this warning, the Times reported, it would be “advantage Republicans” and such a nominee “could drive a Republican landslide in November.” As proof of these assertions, the Times quoted an anti-abortion rights activist, the executive director of Democrats for Life of America.

If this seems like a low point in news reporting even for The Washington Times, recall that, as my colleague Morgan Weiland has noted, after steep cutbacks in the newsroom in 2009, The Washington Times stated that it would focus on the paper's “well-established core strengths that include exclusive reporting and in-depth national political coverage, enterprise and investigative reporting, geo-strategic and national security news, and cultural coverage based on traditional values.” The president of Washington Times LLC Jonathan Slevin stated that the paper “will continue to report Washington-focused news that other journalistic enterprises often overlook.”

Apparently this is what the Times meant by “overlooked” stories involving “cultural coverage based on traditional values.”

It should also be noted just what conservatives consider to be “extreme on abortion or other key issues.” For example, The Washington Times editorial board appears to consider a nomination by Obama evidence that a nominee is “radical.” Times editorials have called Sonia Sotomayor a radical as well as lower court nominees Goodwin Liu, Edward Chen, and David Hamilton.

In addition, conservatives have distorted the record of Seventh Circuit Diane Wood in abortion-related cases -- including one case in which the Supreme Court agreed with her position -- to claim that she is an activist.

From The Washington Times article headlined “Abortion issue looms over high court fight”:

Few court watchers expect Mr. Obama to nominate anyone other than a pro-choice jurist to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. At the same time, a nominee viewed as extreme on abortion or other key issues is expected to ignite a Senate dogfight that could ripple through the November elections.

In that case, advantage Republicans. With many House and Senate Democrats clinging to tossup seats, a Supreme Court battle royale over a nominee seen as too liberal could drive a Republican landslide in November.

In Mr. Obama's corner are 59 Senate Democrats, one shy of preventing a filibuster but more than enough than the required majority needed to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. While Senate Democrats have reliably backed the president, some could peel off in the face of a stiff GOP challenge.

“For Republicans to keep this issue in the forefront is a good political strategy,” said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America. “A lot of safe seats could go either way in the fall.”

For that reason, she said, she doubted that the president would play into Republican hands by nominating an established pro-choice activist.

“We just had a huge abortion debate over health care, and I can't see any reason why people would want Round 2,” Ms. Day said. “I don't think we would get a nominee who was outspoken on abortion.”