A recent Washington Post editorial quoted Abraham Lincoln to bolster its assertion that the current filibuster by Senate Democrats against the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit amounted to “a kind of extortion.” Unable to get Mr. Estrada to answer questions about his opinions on various issues, the Democrats have been trying to get access to his confidential memos from his days in the Justice Department.

The Lincoln quotation sounded like a clincher: “We cannot ask a man what he will do [on the court], and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it.” But the editorial quoted only half of the Lincoln quotation. President Lincoln when on to say, “Therefore, we must take a man whose opinions are known.”

The omission was spotted by a former editorial writer for The Post, John P. MacKenzie, who later wrote editorials for The New York Times, still reads The Post carefully and has a memory like an elephant.

Mr. MacKenzie supplied the missing words and explained the significance of the complete Lincoln quotation in a letter to The Post. He wrote: “The depth of Mr. Estrada’s sentiments on issues facing the federal courts seems to be known only to the far-right members of the legal community who support him and to the Bush administration. The question is whether the Senate, which has an equal say in whether Mr. Estrada will sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has an equal right to the information, including Justice Department memorandums, that is available to the administration. It is far from extortionate that senators not be forced to vote without the information the administration holds.”

By President Lincoln’s reasoning, Mr. Estrada is not qualified for the court appointment if his opinions are unknown publicly. The full quotation comes to light as the Senate Republicans vow to keep bringing up the Estrada nomination against the opposition of all but a handful of the Democrats. The Republicans, including both Maine senators, have been unable to muster more than 55 of the necessary 60 votes to break the filibuster.