This sentiment is understandable. For what it's worth, that editorial does not represent the views of everyone at NR—just some of the senior editorial staff. I certainly disagree with it. President Trump deserves to have an attorney general who will deliver on his priorities within the law, and Mr. Blanche has proven himself to be capable, effective, and far from the caricature that Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans make him out to be. And, as you say, what we've seen coming out of the DOJ in Trump 2.0 has been remarkable. The OLC's masterful disparate-impact ruling alone is deserving of an entire magazine edition exploring how it might be applied to dismantle DEI, affirmative action, and anti-White racism throughout the country. NR has also published defenses of Mr. Blanche's nomination, including by the incisive @mike_frags, who wrote, in a thorough column primarily directed toward Trump-skeptical senators and staffers, that "the upside of not confirming [Blanche] is performative while the downside is real." (nationalreview.com/bench-mem…) None of this is a defense of the editorial; just a note that, in keeping with a tradition of lively debate and dissent, NR also hosts staffers, writers, and columns that disagree with the senior masthead's POV.