Following on Byron York’s column that I blogged here, Melanie Kirkpatrick raises the same complaints in this Wall Street Journal oped. What is so objectionable about the Democrats’ conduct? Here’s what Kirkpatrick says:

The memos–from 2001-02 when the Democrats controlled Judiciary under the chairmanship of Sen. Patrick Leahy–show the senators took their marching orders from People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the NAACP. No surprise here, as anyone who’s been following the course of Mr. Bush’s stalled nominees knows full well. But the extent of the groups’ micromanagement is eye-popping and exposes the opposition to Mr. Bush’s judicial picks for what it really is: political maneuvering, not principled differences of opinion.

I don’t understand the distinction Kirpatrick is drawing. Why would these liberal groups oppose these nominees except for principled differences of opinion? The participation of interest groups in “micromanaging” certain issuse for either Democrats or Republicans is neither eye-popping nor objectionable. One of the salutary features of interest group involvement is that such groups provide expertise that politicians may draw upon. The problem comes when the interest group pursues something in its self-interest that opposes the public good. I don’t see that here. Rather, we have an ideological disagreement over what the public good requires. Democrats were not duped into doing anything inconsistent with their values.