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."

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.

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).

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.' "

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--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.

[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.]

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 --!”

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.

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.

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...

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.