While Graham kept a low profile in the debate over Haynes, he is widely viewed on Capitol Hill and beyond as the person most responsible for Haynes' rejection. Graham, a former military lawyer and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had expressed strong reservations about Haynes' fitness for the appellate court.

With nine Republicans and seven Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, opposition from a single Republican was enough to block the nomination from going to the full Senate. In the end, the Senate quietly sent the nomination back to the president.

Several conservative critics faulted Graham for blocking Haynes, saying the nominee was the type of strict constructionist that the conservatives have pushed to have appointed to the bench. The critics also criticized Graham for not allowing the nomination to go forward for a vote in the full Senate.

But while Graham might have been the point man in rejecting Haynes' nomination, he certainly was not alone in his reservations about him. Graham's stand had the backing of many military lawyers and other senior officers who were uneasy with Haynes' role in setting interrogation policies used at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Those policies embraced using dogs to menace prisoners, leaving prisoners in stress positions for hours at a time, withholding food and water, and stripping prisoners and placing them in uncomfortably cold cells. In short, Haynes, as chief counsel to the Defense Department, endorsed torture.

We understand that some conservatives would take issue with Graham's efforts to deny Haynes a vote on the floor of the Senate. Graham, after all, was one of the so-called "Gang of 14" who helped craft a compromise with Democrats to forego filibustering judicial nominees and give them a chance for an up-or-down vote.

But Graham's decision reflected the thinking of senior military officers and his own conscience. Haynes was not a fit nominee.

If the White House and its conservative supporters want a full Senate vote for their judicial candidates, they need to choose more qualified people.

IN SUMMARY
Sen. Lindsey Graham voted his conscience in blocking vote on judicial nominee.