Mr. Leahy has served as the ringmaster while a group of liberal special-interest lobbies pounced on and bloodied a succession of Bush judicial nominees. But the attacks on Charles Pickering, Priscilla Owen, D. Brooks Smith and Michael McConnell were all mere warm-ups for today's assault on Miguel Estrada, whom the liberal Democrats on Judiciary perceive as the Bush nominee most worth defeating. Senator Charles Schumer got in some whipwork Tuesday when he chaired a hearing on the importance of "ideology" in the D.C. Circuit.

First, his record as an Assistant Solicitor General from 1992-97. It's hard to paint someone who spent five years in the Clinton Administration as a right-wing threat. Nor does it help that a number of prominent Democrats--former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, Gore adviser Ron Klain--vie to outdo Republicans singing his praises.

Then there is the absence of an Estrada paper trail. Unlike nominees Owen, Smith and Pickering, who were serving on lower courts at the time of their nominations, or Mr. McConnell, who is a professor, Mr. Estrada doesn't have a long list of publications for the Democrats to dissect and distort. That was the reason for Mr. Leahy's obviously preposterous request last spring for the Justice Department to turn over all of Mr. Estrada's private legal memos from his tenure in the Solicitor General's office. The Justice Department said no to this unprecedented fishing expedition.

It's also the reason that much of the Democrats' case against Mr. Estrada now rests on the accusations of a single critic: Paul Bender, currently a professor at Arizona State and previously Mr. Estrada's superior for part of the time he worked at the Solicitor General's office.

Mr. Bender has said publicly that Mr. Estrada's conservative viewpoints would taint his work on the bench. He told the Washington Post earlier this year that Mr. Estrada "lacks the judgment and he is too much of an ideologue to be an appeals court judge." Even the American Bar Association, after listening to these accusations, awarded Mr. Estrada its highest rating of unanimously well-qualified.

So it's useful to contrast Mr. Bender's current opinion of Miguel Estrada's capabilities with his view of his work back in 1994-96, during those supervisory years. Start with the fact that the two performance reviews that bear the Bender signature both carry a rating of "outstanding" in every job category. Among Mr. Bender's comments on Mr. Estrada's work are the following:

"All dealings, oral and written, with the courts, clients, and others are conducted in a diplomatic, cooperative, and candid manner."

"Is constantly sought for advice and counsel. Inspires co-workers by example."

"Consistently flexible and creative in the performance of duties."

". . . states the operative facts and applicable law . . . with concern for fairness, clarity, simplicity, and conciseness."

". . . displays an exceptional understanding of the major factual and legal issues involved in appellate effort."

The Judiciary Committee doesn't normally call witnesses for hearings on appeals court nominees. But we suggest they make an exception in Mr. Estrada's case and ask Mr. Bender to explain why he has suddenly reversed himself and decided Mr. Estrada is an "ideologue" with "unbalanced" judgment. As Senator Joe Biden, then Chairman, said during Clarence Thomas's hearings, "The nominee has the right to be confronted by his accuser. . . . This is not a star chamber."

Online at http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002341