Firing Blanks

An editorial in today's New York Times, "Judge Alito, in His Own Words," echoes the talking points of the Democrats. It presents further evidence that the outlet is little more than an arm of the fringe radical Left.

As far as propaganda rags go, the Times has its place. However, I do think that the claim that it's the nation's "paper of record" has to be put to rest.

The editorial states:

Some commentators are complaining that Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings have not been exciting, but they must not have been paying attention. We learned that Judge Alito had once declared that Judge Robert Bork - whose Supreme Court nomination was defeated because of his legal extremism - "was one of the most outstanding nominees" of the 20th century. We heard Judge Alito refuse to call Roe v. Wade "settled law," as Chief Justice John Roberts did at his confirmation hearings. And we learned that Judge Alito subscribes to troubling views about presidential power.

Those are just a few of the quiet bombshells that have dropped. In his deadpan bureaucrat's voice, Judge Alito has said some truly disturbing things about his view of the law. In three days of testimony, he has given the American people reasons to be worried - and senators reasons to oppose his nomination. Among those reasons are the following:

EVIDENCE OF EXTREMISM Judge Alito's extraordinary praise of Judge Bork is unsettling, given that Judge Bork's radical legal views included rejecting the Supreme Court's entire line of privacy cases, even its 1965 ruling striking down a state law banning sales of contraceptives. Judge Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton - a group whose offensive views about women, minorities and AIDS victims were discussed in greater detail at yesterday's hearing - is also deeply troubling, as is his unconvincing claim not to remember joining it.

OPPOSITION TO ROE V. WADE In 1985, Judge Alito made it clear that he believed the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He had many chances this week to say he had changed his mind, but he refused. When offered the chance to say that Roe is a "super-precedent," entitled to special deference because it has been upheld so often, he refused that, too. As Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, noted in particularly pointed questioning, since Judge Alito was willing to say that other doctrines, like one person one vote, are settled law, his unwillingness to say the same about Roe strongly suggests that he still believes what he believed in 1985.

SUPPORT FOR AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY Judge Alito has backed a controversial theory known as the "unitary executive," and argued that the attorney general should be immune from lawsuits when he installs illegal wiretaps. Judge Alito backed away from one of his most extreme statements in this area - his assertion, in a 1985 job application, that he believed "very strongly" in "the supremacy of the elected branches of government." But he left a disturbing impression that as a justice, he would undermine the Supreme Court's critical role in putting a check on presidential excesses.

INSENSITIVITY TO ORDINARY AMERICANS' RIGHTS Time and again, as a lawyer and a judge, the nominee has taken the side of big corporations against the "little guy," supported employers against employees, and routinely rejected the claims of women, racial minorities and the disabled. The hearing shed new light on his especially troubling dissent from a ruling by two Reagan-appointed judges, who said that workers at a coal-processing site were covered by Mine Safety and Health Act protections.

DOUBTS ABOUT THE NOMINEE'S HONESTY Judge Alito's explanation of his involvement with Concerned Alumni of Princeton is hard to believe. In a 1985 job application, he proudly pointed to his membership in the organization. Now he says he remembers nothing of it - except why he joined, which he insists had nothing to do with the group's core concerns. His explanation for why he broke his promise to Congress to recuse himself in any case involving Vanguard companies is also unpersuasive. As for his repeated claims that his past statements on subjects like abortion and Judge Bork never represented his personal views or were intended to impress prospective employers - all that did was make us wonder why we should give any credence to what he says now.

The debate over Judge Alito is generally presented as one between Republicans and Democrats. But his testimony should trouble moderate Republicans, especially those who favor abortion rights or are concerned about presidential excesses. The hearings may be short on fireworks, but they have produced, through Judge Alito's words, an array of reasons to be concerned about this nomination.

I disagree.

Moderate Republicans have no reason to be troubled, nor do any reasonable Americans.

What is troubling is that the Times goes with an editorial that misrepresents the facts. Of course, by definition, an editorial is an opinion piece. That opinion loses validity when it's based on postively goofy interpretations of reality, otherwise known as the Dems' worldview. Opinion must be supported by facts to be taken seriously. That's why Maureen Dowd's drivel is so farcical.

Read what the San Francisco Chronicle has to say about the Dems and CAP.

Kennedy, the liberal lion from Massachusetts, implied Alito's membership meant he harbored bigotry against minorities because of the group's inflammatory writings. For weeks, he has said that Rusher refused to release four boxes of CAP records that are in the Library of Congress, "unless he is told which member(s) or committee(s) are seeking it, and unless he can control the use of the materials released," according to a Dec. 22 letter to committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Alito had listed his membership in the group, known as CAP, on a 1985 job application to the Reagan Justice Department. After President Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court, Alito said he had no memory of the group.

The high court nominee vigorously disavowed a 1983 essay from the group's magazine, Prospect, that Kennedy on Wednesday read aloud to the committee, called "In Defense of Elitism":

"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 physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children."

California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, the committee's lone woman, egged Kennedy on from the sideline to include a last derogatory line about women. "Finish the last line," she prodded.

Alito disavowed the quotation. "Had I thought that that's what this organization stood for," he said, "I would never associate myself with it in any way."

Dinesh D'Souza, editor of Prospect from late 1983 to 1985, said in an interview that he didn't recall the article and didn't write it.

"It sounds like a parody, but I would have to look at it," D'Souza said in an interview. He said undergraduate magazines often contain sophomoric articles, "and half the time they're produced by a sophomore."

Kennedy demanded that the committee take a vote on a subpoena, warning Specter that he would demand votes "again and again and again" until the matter was resolved. The threat sounded like the opening moves of a filibuster to block Alito's confirmation.

Specter said it was the first time he had heard of the request. "If it's really a matter of importance, you and I see each other all the time; you've never mentioned it to me," Specter told Kennedy. He promised to look into it and twice slammed down the gavel angrily.

Kennedy then held a press conference expressing disbelief that Alito could remember his 67 dissents as a Third Circuit appellate judge, but not his membership in such an inflammatory group.

Almost instantly, the White House and groups backing Alito's nomination let loose a torrent of e-mails, including a December New York Times report that had located the Rusher records at Princeton's library and found no evidence that Alito was actively involved in the group.

Majority Leader Frist, R-Tenn., called Kennedy's ploy "an unfair smear campaign." Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman called it "part of a coordinated assault led by far-left attack groups like MoveOn.org."

After lunch, Specter returned with news. He said the obvious thing to do was to call Rusher.

"Mr. Rusher said he'd be glad to have us look at his records," and had only declined initially because the request had been anonymous, Specter said. "But he said had he received a request from Sen. Kennedy or some member of this committee, he would have made the records available."

What a circus!

These hearings are a colossal waste of time; not because Alito shouldn't be scrutinized, but because some of those doing the scrutinizing are mammoth blowhards.

As the Dems on the Judiciary Committee continue to fire blanks, so does the editorial staff of the New York Times.