The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on the nomination of John J. “Jack” McConnell Jr. for a Rhode Island federal district judgeship tomorrow, and we thought it was appropriate to highlight the dishonesty of the Washington Times' opposition to McConnell's nomination.

On May 13, The Washington Times called for the Senate to reject McConnell's nomination. The Times' major piece of evidence that McConnell was unfit for the bench was that, on appeal, McConnell had lost a lawsuit he filed lead paint manufacturers on behalf of the state of Rhode Island. The Times editorial quoted the Providence Journal editorial board's criticism of the legal argument McConnell had advanced to back up the Times' claim that McConnell's actions were outside the mainstream.

The Washington Times repeated their attack 13 days later, again citing the Providence Journal's criticism of McConnell. However, the Times did not disclose that one day after the Times published its first editorial, the Providence Journal endorsed McConnell.

In its May 14 editorial, the Providence Journal reiterated its criticism of McConnell's argument in the lead paint case, but said:

Jack McConnell, in his legal work and community leadership, has shown that he has the legal intelligence, character, compassion and independence to be a distinguished jurist. Indeed, given his understanding of the “little guy,” Mr. McConnell could serve as something of a healthy offset to the corporate-lawyer backgrounds and attitudes that so many judges have. And his deep knowledge of environmental law could be of particular importance in coming years as such issues come to the fore more often. We hope that the Senate confirms him.

We've already pointed out that contrary to the Times' suggestion that McConnell was pushing a bizarre legal theory in the lead paint lawsuit, the Rhode Island Supreme Court specifically praised the work of the lawyers on the case, which the court described as “formidable and problematic.”