The Mondo Alito blog examines the nominating process for justices of the Supreme Court, for the most part during the hearings for Samuel Alito.

Dinesh D’Sousa d’ishes that one of the controversial “racist” article being used against Sam Alito was intended as a satire:

D’Souza worked for CAP from 1983 to 1985, editing CAP’s controversial Prospect magazine. He said a number of the Democratic attacks on Samuel Alito were based on falsehoods.

First off, D’Souza says, one of the two stories from Prospect that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA, read this week at the confirmation hearings was intended as a satire.

The 1983 essay “In Defense of Elitism” by Harry Crocker III included this line, read dramatically by Kennedy: “People nowadays just don’t seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they’re black and hispanic…”

The essay may not have been funny, D’Souza acknowledges, but Kennedy read from it as if it had been serious instead of an attempt at humor.

“I think left-wing groups have been feeding Senator Kennedy snippets and he has been mindlessly reciting them,” D’Souza said. “It was a satire.”

It is a little hard to believe that a Princeton alum could possibly write, in seriousness, as late as 1983 that “”People nowadays just don’t seem to know their place.”

Yesterday, after Samuel Alito’s appearance before the Senate judiciary committee was over, I was talking with a Democratic member of the committee. S/he predicted there would be no Democratic filibuster against Alito, that Alito will handily win approval on the Senate floor, and that Alito will go on to become a justice as conservative as Antonin Scalia. Unfortunately, these are not daring predictions. I still don’t know what the Democrats were thinking. It seems to me they had one strategy—the gotcha strategy. They were hoping to rattle Alito with pointed questions and produce a gaffe-moment that they could then use to define Alito as some sort of crazy-man. But he proved a better hitter than they were pitchers. There were no strikeouts on his part. Moreover, this strategy was rather thin. Even a misstatement or two would not have likely sunk his nomination. (See President Bush.) I’ve become a broken record—or do we now say a skipping CD?—on this point, but the Demcorats needed to define the Alito nomination and tell a big story that would have convinced a chunk of Americans (beyond the diehards already with them in opposition to Alito) that Alito’s elevation to the court would be bad for Americans like them.

I doubt it, but Daniel Henniger argues the techniques of borking have decayed. Or is it that the Dems are old and sclerotic? The attempted smear of Judge Alito has certainly failed.

Judge Bork notes that becoming a verb is a kind of immortality. “To bork” (working definition): to slander and destroy via the concerted, concentrated, and well-financed efforts of the governmentalist, academic, and media wings of the Democratic party.

After Joe Biden poached a personal history and part of a speech from British Labor politician Neil Kinnock (1987, I think– follow the link), I thought “to bidenize” might emerge as a term meaning “plaigirize” or “enhance the biography while campaigning in the Midwest.” Of course it didn’t– because he’s a Democrat. Until the late 1990s, the “culture makers” covered for Democrats.

Times change. Two new verbs may emerge from the Alito hearings. Consider “To teddy.” A working definition might be “to decay like Dorian Gray, except do so during live, televised Senate hearings.”

Biden may yet become a verb. “To biden”: to shoot onself in one’s own foot using one’s own mouth.

From (shockingly) The Advocate:

Alito did, however, use as an example of ruling for the “little guy” his 2004 decision in favor of a high school bullying victim who was perceived as gay.

“This was a case in which a high school student had been bullied unmercifully by other students in his school because of their perception of his sexual orientation,” Alito said. “He’d been bullied to the point of attempting to commit suicide, and his parents wanted to enroll him at an adjacent public high school. And the school board said, ‘No, you can’t do that,’ and I wrote an opinion upholding their right to have him placed in a safe school, in an adjacent municipality.”

The citation is notable, considering Alito has been opposed by numerous gay rights groups, including the Human Rights Campaign and Lambda Legal.

Further evidence of the damage that our community does to itself by being so reactionary against “discrimination” and “victimization.” (See GLAAD and Gene Shalit, among thousands of other examples).

While I’m sure that Alito is a highly qualified jurist and an intelligent and decent man, I think that concerns about his attitudes toward individual rights, civil liberties and state power are justified. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, no one’s idea of a liberal Democrat, thinks so too. Here’s what Turley has to say in a USA Today op-ed:

Despite my agreement with Alito on many issues, I believe that he would be a dangerous addition to the court in already dangerous times for our constitutional system. Alito’s cases reveal an almost reflexive vote in favor of government, a preference based not on some overriding principle but an overriding party.

In my years as an academic and a litigator, I have rarely seen the equal of Alito’s bias in favor of the government. To put it bluntly, when it comes to reviewing government abuse, Samuel Alito is an empty robe.

Turley adds that Alito’s view on the subject have been “repeatedly rejected not only by his appellate colleagues but also by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Many of the appellate judge who have rebuked Alito for his reluctance to curb government powers are conservatives — including current Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, who in one opinion wrote that Alito would “transform the judicial officer into little more than the cliché ‘rubber stamp.’ “

HH: Joined now by James Lileks, columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, blogger extraordinaire at Lileks.com. James, your take on the week of Alito?

JL: Oh, where does one begin? The fantasy that comes back to me, again and again, is seeing these people grill Albert Einstein.

HH: (laughing)

JL: I would love to see Biden leaning forward with that expression of deep concern, and saying you know, Doc…Doc, I’ve read that you believe that MC=E2, but I gotta say I’m troubled by it. And I’m puzzled as well. And weren’t you a member of a country that elected Hitler?

If everyone in America—the butcher down the block, the college professor, the car mechanic, the mother of two working at home, the CNN analyst—knows that the U.S. senators questioning Sam Alito are posing, are using their airtime to promote themselves and play to their base, then will anyone in America be impressed by what the senators say, or how they pose? Isn’t that like saying, “I know it’s all spin, but he spun me like a top!”?

If everyone in America—again, everyone—knows Judge Alito’s job is to reveal as little as possible about his true thoughts and convictions while coming across in the hearings as a well balanced, intelligent and experienced person, will anyone come away with a solid conviction, as opposed to a hunch, that Judge Alito will be an honest and reliable interpreter of the Constitution?

It is odd that in the age of big media, when everything is shown to us live, up close, and on a high-resolution screen, we still, in the pursuit of insight and knowledge, have to spend all our time reading between the lines.

Any number of alumni have emailed me about the general marginal crankiness of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which organization has figured prominently to the point of silliness in the Alito confirmation hearings. One email in particular (with identifying details modified and editorial annotations added) sheds some useful light on the CAP circa 1981-83, a couple of years before Sam Alito referred to it on his resume, and right in the middle of the period cited by Ted Kennedy yesterday.

[My wife] and I have been comparing memories of C.A.P. from 25 years ago, and I figured that I would add them to yours. [She] wrote for Prospect. They PAID!!! And she went through the try-outs for the University Press Club and they had no problems with her writing. [The University Press Club was a selective group of students who were paid stringers for major papers and wire services, in today’s argot the “mainstream media.” During my day it included several students who are now very well-known journalists, including New Yorker editor David Remnick, Todd Purdum, until recently with the New York Times, Marc Fischer of the Washington Post, and others. - ed.] She was specifically told at the end of the process that since she was known to be conservative politically they would not accept her — Republicans and “anti-commmunistas” need not apply. This was specifically not based on any of the articles she wrote for the try-outs, but on the surmise that her writings might show a conservative slant in the future. She was bummed at the time because she could have used the income! [TigerHawk was also rejected by the University Press Club — I still remember the glum look on David Remnick’s face when he delivered the news. However, I did not hear that my political views were on the table — my rejection appears to have been on the merits… - ed.]

Biden: “Is it fair to say, Judge, that you cringe at the mention of fried chicken and collared greens, or that ‘the bling,’ as I’m told the homies call their shiny material possessions, makes you socially uncomfortable—?”

Chairman Specter: “—That question is wholly inappropriate, Senator, and I must admonish you against using this committee as a forum for floating such inflammatory hypotheticals —!”

Name two members of the racist, sexist CAP organization other than Alito.

White males Laura Ingraham and Dinesh D’Souza…

Kinda funny that the “views against inclusion of women, minorities, and other groups into Princeton” “grew increasingly provocative” when CAP’s magazine was edited by women and minorities.

AP reports on Alito’s wife crying… suggesting it was Lindsey Graham who caused it.

It was of course constant Democratic charges of bigotry that caused Mrs. Alito’s crying. Lindsay Graham merely asked the question they were, but in a way meant to allow him to answer it directly and forcefully. So the AP reports:

“Martha-Ann Bomgardner, who had sat behind her husband for hours of questioning over several days, left as her husband was being questioned by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

“‘Are you really a closet bigot?’ Graham asked Alito. The nominee said no, and Graham said, “No sir, you’re not.”

Are you freakin’ kidding me? How do they have the nerve?

A correction must be issued. AP simply cannot be allowed to get away with this sort of blatant misrepresentation. No, it’s worse than that— it’s an outright deliberate lie.

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wound up looking like the group of boobs that their behavior has demonstrated them to be when the vetting of the William Rusher papers elicited no mention whatsoever of Samuel Alito in connection to Concerned Alumni of Princeton or anything else that could paint him as the bigot that Democrats insinuated he was…

After tossing around threats yesterday of appealing a non-existent ruling of the chair to get the records subpoenaed, Ted Kennedy didn’t even bother to bring up CAP in his third round of questioning today…

From the perspective of MyDD blogger Chris Bowers, Sen. Russ Feingold may be the key to defeating the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.

Feingold, D-Wis., is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Bowers said Democrats on the panel need to stay unified in voting against Alito if the party is to have any hope of defeating him. Feingold has won plenty of praise from bloggers of late — especially for his fight against the USA PATRIOT Act — but his loyalty to the netroots party line on Alito is in doubt because of Feingold’s earlier vote for the nomination of now-Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

It’s been a bad week for the senior Senator from Delaware. And it’s about to get worse.

This morning, at 7:04AM Eastern time, Senator Biden appeared with Katie Couric on the Today Show for about eight minutes. Katie grilled Biden over the personal attacks by some on the Judiciary Committee, causing Mrs. Alito to leave the hearing yesterday in tears. Biden immediately deflects, saying he wasn’t in the room when she cried, and saying the system (the hearing process into judicial nominees) has broken down.

More than Alito’s future is being decided in the hearings.

The pitiful display by Democrat senators during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings has now become the equivalent of certain Democrats taking out the 12 gauge shooting themselves in both feet. This has been a public display of the mean-spirited, cultural and political bankruptcy of the “looney left.” I should be thankful in that they’re only hurting themselves, but they discourage me for the future. This has done nothing but widen the great political divide in this country…

The one that is most discouraging, however, is presidential hopeful Joe Biden.

Alito is to be hung over CAP but Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia, after being not only a member of the Ku Klux Klan, not just a Klan organizer and advocate, but the “Exalted Cyclops,” the top officer in the local Klan unit, who, as a senator, opposed with other southern Democrats the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is referred to by the Washington Post as “a pillar of the Senate”.

Senate Civility: Why Mrs. Alito left the room

Senator Kennedy demanded to know whether Judge Alito had read various articles on CAP that had appeared more than two decades ago, including an editorial that ran in these [WSJ] columns on January 17, 1985.

Ted Kennedy, of all people, expects Alito to remember an editorial in the WSJ from Jan. 17, 1985 (the WSJ dug that one up today: see Doing It Right: The editorial Sen. Kennedy wants Judge Alito to read) — twenty-one years ago almost to the day. The senior senator from Massachussetts can remember newspaper articles from 21 years ago but was too drunk to remember what he did on July 19, 1969.

Maybe it’s because, in Democrat eyes, acts committed in the past are part of “a story of sin and redemption”, but only if you’re a Democrat?

The big loser of the confirmation hearings so far is Teddy Kennedy. In his hectoring and tasteless attack on Samuel Alito he has succeeded in nothing but reminding us of his (Teddy’s) past. While Alito may have been associated with a creepy Princeton alumni publication of twenty years ago, Kennedy was associated was something much worse than that - and we all know it. Those of us of a certain age remember well his dazed expression when questioned about the events on Chappaquiddick, the answers that never added up, the story that never computed (still doesn’t) and the moral, emotional and intellectual contortions we (supporters like me) went through to try to believe him.

What, nothing on the Alito confirmation hearings? OK, here’s a little something.

I was never that in love with Alito, but he’s about as good as we’re going to get from the President Bush. David Corn has it right when he argues that Alito is too “deferential” to Executive power.

During an emotional barrage of questions about 20-year-old written statements by Judge Samuel Alito, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA, today inadvertently asked the Supreme Court nominee if he “believes in the principle of one fetus, one vote.”

Aides immediately alerted Sen. Kennedy that he had co-mingled two major Supreme Court decisions in his question, but Judge Alito chose to answer it anyway.

With all the hoopla over the dust-up between Sens. Kennedy and Specter and Mrs. Alito’s tears, it’s important not to overlook one of the more substantive moments at Wednesday’s hearing: Judge Alito refused to say Roe v. Wade was settled law and left open the possibility of revisiting it.

TMV was out of pocket most of yesterday and could not watch the hearings on television. He could listen to news radio and (God save him) liberal and conservative talk radio with the predictable spin — each side saying how well their team was doing.

One thread that seemed to come through on radio news reports and most talk radio shows: yesterday was perhaps not the best day in terms of public relations for the Democrats. People can argue whether that’s the way it should be or not, but the consensus seemed to be that the Democrats’ case so far is pleasing party partisans but not necessarily scoring significantly beyond that. Time (and polls) will tell.

There is debate at the Volokh Conspiracy as to whether Ted Kennedy’s technique of guilt-by-association against Samuel Alito evokes a valid analogy to Joseph McCarthy’s disgrace at the Army-McCarthy hearings.

Here is Joseph Welch’s famous rebuke to Joseph McCarthy at those hearings on June 9, 1954:

“Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

What was Ted Kennedy attempting to do today, other than to assassinate Sam Alito’s character by charging him with responsibility for every statement made by Concerned Alumni of Princeton? Todd Zywicki’s analogy is chillingly apt: Kennedy’s clumsy accusation was entirely within the spirit of inquisition McCarthy was attempting to use against Fred Fisher, for having once been a member of the Lawyer’s Guild.

AJStrata makes a point that — with a little tweaking — reveals the desperation of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee:

I seriously doubt Ted Kennedy and his Senate Democrat co-conspirators realize what a bone head move they just made regarding the CAP subpoena for dirt on Alito. While Congress has the power of subpoena, it is clear this planned invasion of privacy of a US Citizen not even involved in the hearings on Judge Alito was without judicial oversight. There was no FISA court or Federal Court in front of which the dems had to show probable cause.

This is not something allowed under FISA, NSA guidance or The Patriot Act. Ted Kennedy and the Democrats just showed which part of government is the one likely to go after private citizens on the flimsiest of excuses. Excuses that don’t come close to covering up the partisan intent.

AFTER MANY YEARS of reading the editorials of the New York Times with interest and attention, both my interest and attention began to drop below absolute zero after several months of sour grapes following the 2000 elections. Soon after that my interest and attention in the paper itself went even lower until, after nearly three decades as a daily reader of the Times, I decided that the money spent on the paper could be put to better use buying lap dances for indigent friends. At least they’d get a little pleasure from the money.

Since early in 2002 I’ve not spent a penny on the paper, but I do read it online from time to time just to assure myself that its death spiral continues unabated. Lately, since Publisher Pinch (Super-Genius!) has decided to let the once marginally successful online Times joint the death march of the print edition by walling up the columnists behind a “pay” wall, I’ve taken to imbibing the Times in the least lethal dosage available; RSS Feeds.

Illinois’ Dick Durbin symbolizes what’s wrong with the Senate. The Springfield senator has spent most of his adult life either as a legislator, or working for one. For instance, he spent many years working for the late Paul Simon. In short, Durbin’s never held what most people would call a real job.

But he’s great at pontificating, scolding, and using a condescending tone of voice whenever he speaks, especially when the TV cameras are pointing at his direction.

So it’s not a real surprise that he’s embarrassing himself during the Alito confirmation hearings …

Durbin accused of Alito of seeking out ways to decide cases against the little guy and even tried to connect a decision of Alito’s to the recent mining disaster. Alito defended himself in his usual way: I decide cases according to the law. That case relating to mining was about the statutory definition of "mine," and the above-ground pile of coal at issue in the case did not fit the definition.

Durbin just repeated his accusation: There’s a pattern, a pattern of decisions, you know, the crushing hand of fate. (Crushing miners underground?) Durbin sounds a litttle dimwitted saying this, but his point is one made by some of the smartest people in the legal academy: I don’t care what your excuse is for any given case that you might want to explain. I will just retreat to my observation, based on every case you ever decided, that there is an overall pattern of siding with the big guy.

Here’s a surefire tip for any prospective Supreme Court nominees out there. Doubtless, you will be attacked by Ted Kennedy, who, as we know, has been appointed senator-for-life by the people of Massachusetts. Mr. Kennedy, you see, is a lacky for special interest groups and will stop at nothing to smear your good name and drag you through the mud. Everyone (at least everyone interesting) has at least one skeleton in his closet, and even if you don’t, Kennedy will make one up.

So, here’s the plan (boy, I should really hang on to this and go into the consulting business - this is solid gold, I tell you!):

When Kennedy goes into attack dog mode, look him straight in the eye, and say the following:…

"Let’s start these hearings on the confirmation of Samuel Alito," Sen. Arlen Specter announced, "Any points of order?"

"Can we insert intermissions in Senator Biden’s ‘questions’ ‘cause I can’t always hold it that long?" Alito asked.

"And I’d like to make a statement," President Bush said.

"Go ahead," Specter answered.

Bush stood up and fixed his suit. "Alito is a good judge. You better all vote to confirm him." He then shook his fist at the Democrats before sitting back down.

"Let’s move on to questioning," Specter said.

"Good," Senator Chuck Schumer stated, "Now Alito doesn’t have his mafia goons to hide behind."

"They’re sanitation workers, and you better show them respect, you mook!" Alito threatened.

"It’s Senator Biden’s turn to speak," Specter interrupted, "Everyone can use this as nap time if they want."

"I’d like to start my question with an anecdote from my childhood that I don’t quite remember," Biden said, "Once, when scared by a butterfly, I…"

“…As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire…”
—Rudyard Kipling

Horsefeathers spent an enjoyable few hours yesterday and today, watching the real ‘Entertainment Network’—C-Span, where the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, a veritable ship of burnt fools, questioned Supreme Court nominee, Judge Samuel Alito. We marveled at his ability to refrain from laughing aloud during the endless speechifying lectures, disguised as questions, from those paragons of virtue, Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy. Perhaps the glasses of liquid he occasionally sipped contained shots of Gentleman Jack, but we suspect the good Judge possesses great reservoirs of self- restraint. Senator Kennedy was especially choice, as he displayed his concern for the helpless, by deploring “Strip search Sam” for a ruling that allowed cops to search a 10 yr. old child of drug dealers. Gee whiz, you might have thought the Judge had endorsed sexual abuse of girls. Oh, sorry, that’s exactly what the moral exemplar from Massachusetts was hoping you’d think. Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

To save you the trouble of sitting through the Democrats’ unrelenting condescension, arrogance, and Category 5 windbagginess, I bring you a video clip of today’s Alito confirmation hearings that epitomizes the Left’s desperation.

You’ve read by now of Teddy Kennedy’s ridiculous call to subpoena the papers of William Rusher, former National Review publisher who helped found the Concerned Alumni of Princeton group. Power Line recaps here. Those papers are available at the Library of Congress and, as NRO’s Kathryn Lopez noted, have already been pawed over by the NYTimes.

There’s. Nothing. There.

… to merely being an opportunistic liar:

The conservative alumni group Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) has been the subject of criticism in recent weeks, but yesterday the University itself also came under scrutiny.

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), who grilled Samuel Alito ‘72 about his CAP membership, also said that he "wasn’t a big Princeton fan."

"I didn’t even like Princeton," he said, to laughter from the gallery. "I mean, I really didn’t like Princeton. I was an Irish Catholic kid who thought it had not changed like you concluded it had," referring to Alito’s earlier statement that Princeton had changed its traditional ways before he enrolled.

But Biden had nothing but praise for the University in a 2004 speech at the Wilson School.

I got the transcript of yesterday’s Alito confirmation hearings and did a count of words spoken by each Senator and John Roberts in their 30 minute Q&A sessions. Then I figured out the actual percentage of words in each exchange used by the particular Senator and those by Judge Alito. I’m listing them here, grouping the Senators by party in descending order of bloviation.

So here they are side by side, Senators percentage first, followed by Alito’s percentage (w/ actual numbers of words used by the individual Senator and Judge Alito during the Q & A in parentheses):

Democrats

“Rosary Joe” Biden 78-22% (DE) (3,673 - 1,013) (a 1,879 word, and 13 minute opening “question”)

Chuck Schumer (NY) 75-25% (3,555-1,165)

Ted Kennedy (MA) 69-31% (3,439-1,539)

Pat Leahy (VT) 60-40% (2,714-1,874)

Russ Feingold (WI) 56-44% (2,976-2,364)

Diane Feinstein (CA) 42-58% (1,912-2,593)

Herb Kohl (WI) 37-63% (1,835-3,094)

Republicans

Mike DeWine (OH) 72-28% (3,398-1,323) (Corrected from 82%-18%)

Lindsey Graham (SC) 65-35% (3,032-1,643)

Jeff Sessions (AL) 61-39% (2,827-1,773)

John Cornyn (TX) 56-44% (3,407-1,900)

Jon Kyl (AZ) 53-47% (2,594-2,255)

Orrin Hatch (UT) 54-46% (2,686-2,242)

Chuck Grassley (IA) 51-49% (2,305-2,183)

Arlen Specter (PA) 50-50% (2,232-2,194)

I’m not going to live-blog the bloviations from Ted Kennedy in great detail, but I have to add something about Kennedy’s pulling out sentences from magazines and newspapers and demanding to know if Alito had ever read them. Isn’t this the same kind of treatment that Democrats complain that the PATRIOT Act would do to Americans — hold them responsible for their reading material? None of this has anything to do with Alito’s record as a judge, but because he mentioned the Prospect and National Review as magazines he may have read, now he’s being held responsible for every word they have ever published. I read the New York Times, and I hardly agree with anything they write.

Jonathon Turley comes out against Sam Alito, and he comes out hard:

Despite my agreement with Alito on many issues, I believe that he would be a dangerous addition to the court in already dangerous times for our constitutional system. Alito’s cases reveal an almost reflexive vote in favor of government, a preference based not on some overriding principle but an overriding party. In my years as an academic and a litigator, I have rarely seen the equal of Alito’s bias in favor of the government. To put it bluntly, when it comes to reviewing government abuse, Samuel Alito is an empty robe…

Again, if there is a basis for opposing Alito, I would think this would be it, and not the absurd attempts to portray Roe v. Wade as good law…

ESTRAGON: First I want to go over some of the things you said yesterday. Vladimir, you testified yesterday that you’d keep an open mind. Isn’t that right?

VLADIMIR: I did and I do.

ESTRAGON: Now are you aware of any nominee in the history of the republic who has come before the Senate and testified he’d keep a closed mind?

VLADIMIR: I’m not aware of that. But I can only speak for myself.

ESTRAGON: Of course.

VLADIMIR: I will keep an open mind on all issues.

ESTRAGON: You also testified yesterday that no one, not even the president, is above the law. Right?

VLADIMIR: That’s certainly true.

ESTRAGON: Yes.

And are you aware of any nominee in the history of this republic, of whatever political philosophy, judicial philosophy or denomination, who has come before the Senate — party denomination — and testified that, actually, there are a few people who are above the law?

VLADIMIR: I’m not aware of a nominee like that, Estragon.

ESTRAGON: Me either.

Consider this statement from his wife this week:

His music tastes tend toward Beethoven and Bruce Springsteen but “I force him to listen to Scarlatti and Bach,” Mrs. Alito said in a Washington Post interview published Monday. He once attended a ska festival—that’s rock music, with a touch of reggae and horns.

Hmmmm. Springsteen seems obvious (especially with a mother named Rose Alito). But, a middle-aged, New Jersey, Italian-American, Republican—and his wife doesn’t identify Frank Sinatra among his musical favorites? Sounds like he’s not being very forthcoming here…

Kevin Drum, noting that Judge Alito freely gave his views on Griswold v. Connecticut but has steadfastly resisted getting pinned down on Roe v. Wade asks, “Why is it OK to take a firm stand on some decisions but not on others? What’s the supposed algorithm here?

The supposed algorithm is “settled law.” That is, some cases have been on the books for long enough without any substantial challenge rising up against them as to be settled, however controversial they were at the time. Obvious examples would be Brown v. Board of Education (school desegregation) and Marbury v. Madison (establishing the right of the courts to strike down laws as “unconstitutional”).

I don’t know that there’s an algorithm for making that distinction, however. Roe, by virtue of the continued controversy surrounding it, is definitely not settled law. Is Griswold settled? While its text, making up the right to contraceptives via a right of privacy made up from emanations from penumbras is almost always quoted ironically, the basic idea that various provisions of the Constitution guarantee some degree of privacy is no longer controversial. The question is only where one draws the line.

Apparently there was a big show down between Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter and Senator Ted Kennedy over a letter requesting a subpoena to uncover more records about Judge Sam Alito and his membership in a group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton.

Kennedy and leftist sycophants are calling this group “racist” and “sexist” and are implying that Alito, if he was a member of it, is those same things.

But what exactly does this group stand for that makes it so racist and sexist? Here’s a clue …

morguefile

Based on Chuck Schumer’s opening statement yesterday, I propose a drinking game for today’s Alito hearing: drink whenever Chuckie S. says the word “extreme.”

[Drinking game proposal not serious. Please drink responsibly. Do not drive after playing the Chuckie S. Drinking Game.]

UPDATE:

The Expanded Drinking Game

The transcript of the Alito hearing yesterday is available. Here are Part I, Part II, and Part III.

Chuckie S.’s questions come in Part III, and the word “extreme” didn’t pop up once, making my proposed drinking game something of a bust. But I agree with commenter JVW that a more wide-ranging game is appropriate. Here are his suggestions:

Drink everytime: - Schumer says “extreme” (or a variant) - Schumer says “I” or “me” - Biden calls Alito “buddy” or “pal” - Biden says “I’m not following you” or otherwise betrays his total ignorance of the law - Kennedy gets lost in the middle of a harangue - Someone asks Alito how he would rule on Roe, knowing full well he won’t answer [Patterico sez: this is the one that’ll get you] - Any Democrat claims to be “concerned” - Any mention of Guantanamo Bay [Patterico adds: or FISA, wiretapping, or strip-searching a 10-year-old girl] - Feinstein says something that alludes to her being the token woman on the committee

Schumer: “I was going to ask you, Judge Alito, why you think—and please, let’s dispense with all these so-called ‘qualifications’, references to ‘relevant context’, or invocations of ‘attendant legal precedence’—I was going to ask you why you believe that the Constitution does not allow a young girl who’s been brutally raped by her White Trash Pappy the legal availability to an abortion? Is it because you hate women? Is it because you are an Italian fundie…? Is it because you’re a racist redneck? These questions plague me.

“But then it hit me: why not just forget all this theater and nominate myself for Supreme Court Justice? After all, I know what I believe the law should say. And when all is said and done, that’s what this is about, isn’t it?—appointing someone under the guise of ‘disinterested legal deliberation’ who will do as I say and think as I think? So. If I may, Mr Chairman, I’d like to make a motion to nominate myself for the Supreme Court of —”

Chairman Specter: “— With all due respect, that is not how the system works, as the distinguished gentleman from New York most certainly is aware —”

It doesn’t appear to me that the Democrats are striking fear into the hearts of Alito supporters. They’ve been asking the right questions: why do your decisions so often support powerful institutions over the little guy, how deferential will you be toward executive power, why will you say you see a constitutional basis for school desegregation and the use of contraception but will not say whether abortion rights enjoy the same standing? Yet they’re not telling a story. I hate to sound like a Hollywood producer (though I wouldn’t mind living like one), but this hearing was an opportunity—really, the only one—for the Democrats to present an overarching narrative for the Alito nomination. They needed to define the hearings on their terms: We know Alito’s a smart fellow and competent judge, but we’re not going to support anyone who is likely to vote to end or drastically undermine the right to an abortion, and it’s up to Alito to convince us that is not the case with him.

I thought the Kennedy-Alito exchange on CAP sounded familiar:

Senator MCCARTHY. Not exactly, Mr. Chairman, but in view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist Party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, incidentally, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party …

Having overplayed their hand for the last 30 years, and being made up of the same kind of rich, self centered brats that Alito politely described in his monologue, the Democrat party is in serious danger of losing the farm. They’ve already lost both houses and the presidency. Now they’re in danger of using control of the Supreme Court. And they know they can’t get too theatrical or they might lose even more in the upcoming elections.

The big problem with what the Democrats have become is they are not about anything anymore except a few cliched catch phrases and opposing Republicans for the sake of opposing them. But their opposition to the war and their willingness to do anything to tear down the president makes them look like they care more about themselves than the safety and welfare of the American people. And as a result, they risk becoming so marginalized, they might as well join the Whig party in obscurity.

The best thing that can happen to the Democrats is if all their leaders get the boot by voters and they have to put in new, less ideological people. People who have actual ideas that aren’t mired in 20th century notions like Unions, Socialism and the New Deal.

We had a chance after meeting with Senator Hatch to talk with three former Alito clerks and get their reactions to the attacks on their former boss. Jeff Gottlieb, a Democrat, thinks that the attacks have been effectively defused. When asked if the attacks were fair, Gottlieb says, “Probably not, no.”

Reg Brown, a former White House staffer, says the attacks may wind up working to Alito’s benefit. “Now, there’s an air or presumption of untruth [to attack reports],” due to the wild nature of what they’re alleging. Michael Park, another Alito clerk, says that the thin nature of these issues show that Alito can’t be challenged on his qualifications, job performance, and judicial temperament.

Brown: “When Bork was nominated, they attacked Robert Bork’s America,” he notes, but now they can’t attack conservatism itself as before.

Jeff Lord, author of The Borking Revolution: “We know now how this works: the ethics charges, followed by the race charges.”

Abigail Thermstrom notes that the President learned to never nominate another Robert Bork. “Robert Bork did his best to get defeated,” she says, contrasting him with Clarence Thomas, who never invited the treatment he received.

The ACLU’s vote is in! For the first time since Robert Bork, the ACLU are officially opposing a nominee for the Supreme Court. I couldn’t expect any less of the organization. The ACLU vote came after a special meeting of its 83-member national board this weekend, which has voted to oppose only two nominees in its 86-year history: Justice William Rehnquist, and Robert Bork.

Click here to download a copy of whack-a-mole.

This week’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Samuel Alito appear to have given rise to a new sport in the blogosphere: Whack-A-Pol.

Here’s how the game is played: Every time a senator pops up with a comment on Alito, bloggers whack ‘em down with a rhetorical hammer. But unlike the game Whack-A-Mole, where the nimble moles often avoid the blows by ducking into their holes, no senator — regardless of party or popularity outside the realm of mouth-to-mouth combat over judicial nominations — can escape the jabs of bloggers. Even worse, bloggers tend to prefer hammers of the sledge variety to the padded pummeling tools used on those carnival rodents.

stock.xchg

The center-right consensus following day one of the Alito confirmation hearings is, to borrow a metaphor from Watchman’s Words, Gulliver 1, Lilliputians, 0. As Hondo put it on Jawa Report, “The bad news for Dems and their co-conspirators at the ACLU is that Alito is turning the confirmation hearings into a wonkfest - a solid, masterful recitation of relevant law in response to antagonistic questioning, with no emotional fireworks to attract much in the way of mainstream media attention.”

Daniel W. Drezner is holding a contest to “find the single dumbest thing a Senator says during the hearings.”

Ankle Biting Pundits, in a post titled “Bloviating Senators-Statistical Proof Senators in Love With Their Own Voices,” did a statistical analysis of the number of words spoken by each senator in relation to those spoken by the nominee.

And in a gesture of commentary-by-photoshop Soxblog put together this montage of “the world’s greatest deliberative body in action”.

Just back from Europe, and boy are my wings tired. Now, I’m just catching up on the latest Alito and Abramoff developments. So did the Dems nail Alito today? Doesn’t seem that way to me from the few accounts I’ve read so far. Since most of the public doesn’t follow this stuff too closely, the only way the Democrats are going to be in the position to mount a filibuster …

As predicted, much of today’s confirmation hearing concerned abortion rights. As GW law prof Jonathan Turleypoints out in USA Today,

The obsession with abortion in American politics has had an anaerobic effect on past confirmation hearings, sucking the air out of other issues.