“ . . . if Congress assesses that the president’s course of global engagement undermines U.S. national interests, it would be derelict if it did not urge a recalibration. There is a difference, however, between principled objection and partisan sabotage.” That’s the pronouncement from Ali Wyne in a “Room for Debate” item in the New York Times on the decision of the United States Supreme Court to give a second hearing to the so-called Jerusalem passport case. Notice anything odd about it?

Mr. Wyne is writing of a law that requires the State Department to abide by the wishes of an American born in Jerusalem to be issued a passport saying the American was born in Israel. What would be partisan about that law? It passed the Senate by unanimous consent. All the Democrats and all the Republicans agreed to it. There was no objection. It just sailed through. The House was nearly unanimous.

Suppose one wanted to give Mr. Wyne and the Times the benefit of the doubt as to whether it’s partisan. Which party is for it? The Republicans who voted for it? Or the Democrats who voted for it? Or would it be the Republican president (George W. Bush) who first refused to enforce the provision or the Democratic president (Barack Obama) who subsequently refused to enforce the measure?

Let us just say it is a mystery of the Times. Maybe the Gray Lady has reached a point where anything with which it disagrees is partisan. Perhaps it has concluded that Israel is automatically partisan. Its formulation seems to be that one can not be principled and partisan at the same time. Maybe it meant to say that there is a difference between principled objection and bi-partisan sabotage. Maybe it would prefer non-partisan sabotage or even principled sabotage.