Taking the Washington Times at face value is a sure way to embarrass yourself

Andrew Sullivan gets the vapors over a Washington Times op-ed which suggests that Sotomayor belongs to a discriminatory organization and that such membership places her in violation of the ABA's Code of Judicial Contact. Here's the Times,

The American Bar Association's Canons of Judicial Ethics stipulates that judges "shall not" be members of any organization that unfairly discriminates based on gender.

Did Andrew read the ABA Model Code of Judicial contact before quoting the Washington Times?

Notice how the Times
1. Does not provide any sort of citation for their claim and
2. Does not quote from the actual model code, they instead paraphrase.

A lack of citation, their paraphrasing and the fact that it's the Washington Times should make you suspicious Andrew. It should be simple enough for them to provide the citation and give the exact quote. What are they trying to hide?

Here's the rule in question: Rule 3.6 part A, page 43 http://www.abanet.org/judicialethics/approved_MCJC.html

"(A) A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices
invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national
origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation."

The key word in the rule is "invidious", it clearly modifies the word discrimination. Invidious is defined thusly,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invidious

Pronunciation:
\in-ˈvi-dē-əs\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin invidiosus envious, invidious, from invidia envy — more at envy
Date:
1606

1: tending to cause discontent, animosity, or envy 2: envious3 a: of an unpleasant or objectionable nature : obnoxious b: of a kind to cause harm or resentment
— in·vid·i·ous·ly adverb
— in·vid·i·ous·ness noun

Is it Andrew's contention that Belizian Grove causes "discontent, animosity, or envy" or that it is an "obnoxious" organization? If the Washington Times felt that the group fit the standard as written then why wouldn't they simply quote the actual standard?

It's obvious that the Washington Times is playing fast and loose with the ethical standard that is at issue. It's a cheap partisan stunt and one that Andrew should be smart enough not to fall for.