One of the guiltier pleasures about the Estrada filibuster has been to see the Washington Post whine about the tactics of the Democratic Party, especially Charles Schumer. Two weeks ago, the now-predictably conservative paper attacked the Democrats for even asking questions about the assumed ideology of Estrada, and had the audacity to quote Lawrence Silberman, one of the more odious of Reagan's appointees to the Federal Court, as its principal source. After the laughter stopped, the Post, perhaps chastened, has now come out with an editorial saying that the Democrats weren't aggressive enough in questioning Estrada the first time, and arguing that

The question at stake in the Democratic filibuster of Mr. Estrada's nomination ultimately has nothing to do with race or with Mr. Estrada's allegedly inadequate answers. It is simply whether a conservative president can reliably place on an appeals court a qualified conservative against whom no serious complaint has been made.

Of course, the ultimate rejoinder to that silly argument, is "TOUGH S***". Or perhaps it would be useful for Democrats to remember that the conservative President in question wasn't elected by the American people. For that reason alone, opposition to his efforts to impose his ideological views on the federal judiciary is not only appropriate, but a patriotic duty.