NYT's strange standard for judges

In an editorial today, the Times claims that the filibuster is a tool that allows Democrats to block "a few of President Bush's most ideologically extreme and least qualified judicial nominees." Least qualified?

The American Bar Association has given ratings to all of the judicial nominees, including the seven circuit judge nominees who have been subjected to filibusters. The ABA ratings have traditionally been afforded great weight, and "[i]n a March 16[, 2001,] letter to President Bush, [Sen. Patrick] Leahy [D-VT] and [Sen. Charles] Schumer [D-NY] said that the 'ABA evaluation has been the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.'" Here are the nominees, followed by their ABA ratings [pdf]:

Janice Rogers Brown -- Qualified (majority)
Richard Griffin -- Well-qualified (substantial majority)
David McKeague -- Well-qualified (unanimous)
William Myers -- Qualified (substantial majority)
Susan Neilson -- Well-qualified (unanimous)
Priscilla Owen -- Well-qualified (unanimous)
William Pryor -- Qualified (substantial majority)
Henry Saad -- Well-qualified (substantial majority)

By what standard, then, does the Times deem these the least qualified of the president's nominees, other than its own ideological measure? Certainly not the "gold standard."