by JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, July 5, 2005 2:36 P.M. EDT

Dems: Please Don't Make Us Fight!
"AMERICA deserves a Supreme Court Justice who receives UNANIMOUS SUPPORT!" shouts the Web site UniteOurStates.com, an effort "born out of Senator Joe Biden's conviction that to make the 21st century an American century we must overcome the politics of division that have burdened our country in recent years."

Biden, of course, is the Delaware Democrat who, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1987, led the effort to bork Judge Robert Bork, though the previous year he had told the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Say the administration sends up Bork and, after our investigation, he looks a lot like another Scalia. I'd have to vote for him, and if the groups tear me apart, that's the medicine I'll have to take. I'm not Teddy Kennedy."

In any case, unanimous approval is an unrealistic expectation in this day and age, and this standard would disqualify five sitting Supreme Court justices: Chief Justice William Rehnquist (confirmed over 33 "no" votes) and Associate Justices David Souter (9), Clarence Thomas (48), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (3) and Stephen Breyer (9). Not since Anthony Kennedy in 1988 has a high court nominee been confirmed unanimously.

No matter, the Democrats have embraced the idea that President Bush should choose someone they can support. "I proposed a summit where the president calls a wide range of senators and we roll up our sleeves, let down our tie and discuss things all day long," Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said Sunday on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" (no transcript online). "Now, would that help? Who knows? But you know, like my grandmother said when I had a cold and she said take chicken soup, it can't hurt."

Ted Kennedy, who Biden was not until 1987, echoes the theme in a Washington Post op-ed:

Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement gives President Bush, elected by a divided nation that has become even more divided, a unique opportunity to unite us by choosing for the Supreme Court someone who can win support from a broad bipartisan majority in the Senate and whom the vast majority of Americans will be proud of.

Kennedy himself has not exactly been a model of consistency in his approach to Supreme Court confirmations. When O'Connor was appointed in 1981, as blogger Jon Henke notes, Kennedy declared:

"It is offensive to suggest that a potential justice of the Supreme Court must pass some presumed test of judicial philosophy. It is even more offensive to suggest that a potential justice must pass the litmus test of any single-issue interest group. The disturbing tactics of division and distortion and discrimination practiced by the extremists of the new right have no place in these hearings and no place in the nation's democracy."

But National Review Online's Ed Whelen recalls that Kennedy, in explaining his vote against a later Republican nominee, declared that he "had not demonstrated 'a sufficient commitment to the core constitutional values at the heart of our democracy' " and that his responses to questions about Roe v. Wade were "alarming." That nominee was David Souter.

It seems unlikely that the president will heed Democratic calls to choose someone who'll make them happy. The most "moderate" of the prospective justices who've been discussed thus far is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, against whose nomination to his current post 36 Democrats (including Jeffords) voted. And, as the New York Times reported on Saturday, the prospect of a Gonzales appointment has already set off a "groundswell of opposition" from conservative groups.

The Dems are making this impossible demand partly for tactical reasons, of course. They want to seem reasonable now, in hope that later they can say: We had to fight. The president chose an extremist!

Yet there may be more to it than this. Consider a pair of comments from Judiciary Committee Democrats on the Sunday news shows. Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont told "Meet the Press" guest hostess Andrea Mitchell, "I would urge that the groups on both the right and the left calm down a little bit. Let's see who the nominee is and trust the Judiciary Committee to do a good hearing."

And Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said on "Fox News Sunday" (no transcript online), "One of the things that bothers me is . . . the groups all mobilize, the money all raised, the expectation of spots back and forth--I think that is destructive, candidly, to the process. And this Judiciary Committee is pretty solid."

Why would Democratic senators go out of their way to distance themselves from the "groups" whose bidding they've eagerly done in the past? Perhaps because they realize that this time they cannot deliver. For all the nervousness on the right, the GOP is in an extremely strong position. This will be the first time since 1986 that a Republican Supreme Court nominee will face a Republican Senate, and the 55-seat majority is more than during any GOP presidency since Hoover's. And unlike in 1987 (Bork) and 1991 (Thomas), this time there are well-funded interest groups on the right as well as the left.

True, the Democrats may be willing to use the filibuster, a weapon they didn't deploy in previous Supreme Court battles. But seven senators are now on record as pledging to abjure this tactic except in "extraordinary circumstances," and, as we noted last month, at least five who were not parties to the compromise seem to have a disinclination to filibuster.

The compromise is not an airtight guarantee against a Supreme Court filibuster, but it does create a counterpressure to party loyalty for the seven compromising Democrats--and it may stiffen the spine of those who, whether for reasons of politics or principle, don't want to filibuster. There's a decent chance that the fight over Justice O'Connor's replacement won't live up to its billing.

Justice for Bolton
A lot of worthy names have been floated for the impending Supreme Court vacancy, and we'd like to add one more to the list: a distinguished public servant who graduated from the prestigious Yale Law School and is an expert in international law, an area that is particularly important in wartime.

We refer, of course, to John Bolton.

OK, it's a long shot, but wouldn't it be worth it just to see Voinovich cry again?

You Don't Say--I
"Conservatives Seek Appointment of One of Their Own to Supreme Court"--headline, (London) Guardian, July 4

You Don't Say--II
"Presidents Not Always Happy With Justices"--headline, Associated Press, July 4

What Would We Do Without Political Experts?
"Political Experts: Fight Over Nominee Possible"--headline, Pantagraph (Bloomington, Ill.), July 2

Rosenberg Family Values
The Associated Press reports on a small protest in New York against the detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay:

Rachel Meeropol, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights that has filed lawsuits in federal court challenging the detentions, also addressed the crowd.

The Bush administration "has claimed the power to kidnap men anywhere in the world and hold them, interrogate them, detain them without any process of law," said Meeropol, the granddaughter of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed in 1953 after being convicted of conspiring to commit espionage for the Soviet Union.

At least Meeropol is honoring tradition--specifically, the family tradition of siding with the enemies of America.

Murderer Yes, Kidnapper No?
"U.S. investigators have concluded that Iranian president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the glowering Islamic militant seen escorting an American hostage in a 1979 photograph that was widely publicized," reports the Los Angeles Times. The Associated Press reports the man in the picture was one Taqi Mohammad, but suggests that Ahmadinejad was involved in the embassy invasion:

Former Iranian president Abholhassan Bani-Sadr, who lives in exile outside Paris, told The Associated Press on Friday that Ahmadinejad "wasn't among the decision-makers but he was among those inside the Embassy."

Bani-Sadr said Ahmadinejad was responsible for briefing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on the hostage situation.

"One of his roles . . . was to inform Mr. Khomeini of what was happening at the Embassy," Bani-Sadr said in a telephone interview.

Another AP dispatch reports that according to an exiled Iranian dissident, Ahmadinejad "played a key role in the 1989 execution-style slayings of a Kurdish opposition leader and two associates in Vienna."

Haven't They Heard of Monster.com?
"Fatah Gunmen Storm PA Government Offices in Gaza to Demand Jobs"--headline, Ha'aretz, July 2

Spot the Idiot
Les Payne, a columnist for Newsday of Long Island, N.Y., offers a bit of good news from Iraq:

Under Saddam Hussein, . . . cars were as rare on the streets of Iraq as ATM machines. Owning a car was a sure sign of deep loyalty to President Hussein, who tightly restricted the import of these expensive, luxury items. While palace cronies whizzed about Baghdad on Italian radials, the average Iraqi, who earned less than $300 annually, succumbed to public transportation and shoe leather.

The Bush War has changed all that. Foreign exchange has put more dinars in the hands of consumption-minded Iraqis. Near the top of the list of luxury items flowing into the country is the automobile. More than 1 million used cars have entered Iraq during the past two years, according to a police survey referenced by the Riyadh-based IFP report, "Rebuilt Iraq." Less than half that number existed in the entire country before the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Mosul, for example, which previously had only 57,000 registered cars, now has 125,000.

But it turns out Payne is nostalgic for the good old days of Saddam's fascist rule: "Blame Bush for flood of used cars in Iraq that have become deadly tools of suicide bombers."

Brainless Gals in Topless Protest
Were we right or were we right when we said that the mindset of Karen Finley, the vulgarian "performance artist," had taken over the Angry Left? Check out this report from the San Francisco Chronicle:

A dozen anti-war activists from Mendocino County took their tops off at high noon in San Francisco's Union Square shopping district Thursday, using what they said was their best weapon to get the public's attention. . . .

Members of the Breasts Not Bombs contingent, which included seven women, three men and two young girls, said the war in Iraq is indecent, not their nakedness. . . .

Breasts Not Bombs said they are trying to make people uncomfortable to get their anti-war message across and to also desensitize people to nudity.

Of course, as we noted last month, such shock tactics "make people uncomfortable" only insofar as they fail to "desensitize" them.

God to Brink: Drop Dead
William Brink, a former managing editor of New York's Daily News, has done what a headline he wrote in 1975 accused President Ford of commanding New York City to do, the New York Times reports. The headline read FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD:

Set in huge bold letters, the headline screamed across Page 1 of the paper on Oct. 30, 1975. In six taut syllables, it brought home its message with the power of a knockout punch: At the height of New York's fiscal crisis, President Gerald R. Ford had declined to bail the city out.

Those six syllables, as Mr. Ford later acknowledged, almost certainly lost him New York State in his 1976 race against Jimmy Carter, and with it, the presidency.

Brink succumbed to congestive heart failure on Friday. He was 89. New York City is still alive, as is Gerald Ford, who turns 92 next week.

Don't They Teach Evolution Anymore?
"Teen Allegedly Confesses to Creating Worm"--headline, Associated Press, July 5

Elizabeth Beats Elvis
"Queen Most Successful Act in UK Chart History"--headline, ContactMusic.com, July 5

After the Summit, Knock Yourself Out
"Geldof Condemns Violence Before G-8 Summit"--headline, Associated Press, July 5

The Family That Sprays Together
"Mich. Family Filled With Champion Spitters"--headline, Associated Press, July 4

Homer Nods
In an item Friday, we wrote that an Associated Press dispatch about the retirement of Sandra O'Connor misidentified her as the Baltimore County state's attorney and made a host of other errors in recounting her biography. As it turns out, the AP story was in fact about the retirement of the Baltimore County state's attorney, so the wire service's only error was referring to her by the name of the Supreme Court justice.

Another item observed that Friday was Canada Day, a holiday north of the border, and credited Canadians with being clever enough to engineer a four-day weekend. We heard from many readers, some of them Canadian, who claim that Canada does not celebrate the Fourth of July. We find this hard to believe, but pass it along for what it's worth. Just be aware that it is not we who are questioning Canadians' patriotism.

The same item observed that one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence--we were thinking of John Hancock--literally put his John Hancock on the declaration. Reader Keith Burgess-Jackson disagrees:

Even John Hancock didn't literally put his John Hancock on the Declaration of Independence. He put his name on the Declaration of Independence. How could he put himself on the Declaration of Independence? Someone else, such as Thomas Jefferson, could have literally put his (colleague) John Hancock on the Declaration of Independence, by lifting him. But Hancock couldn't.

So apparently John Hancock's name was not John Hancock. Maybe it was Sandra O'Connor.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Ed Lasky, Ethel Fenig, Roger Heinig, Matt Murphy, Jack Archer, Andrew Robinson, Barak Moore, Michael Segal, Allen O'Donnell, Rosanne Klass, C.E. Dobkin, Bob O'Hara, M. Gilbertson, Alex Selim, Ruth Papazian, Dan O'Shea, Bill Sullivan, Kevin Patrick, Joseph DeMartino, Charlie Gaylord, Dori Monson, David Jacobson, William Stickle, David Schmitz, Tom Johnston, Bill Hamilton, Lance Burwell, Brent Young, Dan Robbins, Alan Coccio, Kelly Foster, Kristine Erickson, Bob Marciszewski, Michael Gilroy, Bill Pearce, Thomas Cosentino, Bruce Kaskubar, Eleanor Holt, Jim Mulis, Billy Wint, Dale Madson, Michael Wiskind, Kevin Taylor, Betty Steinbacher, Avinoam Sharon, William Lassen, Benjamin Leppard, Julia Persky, Chris Hairel, Mark Kleppin, David Neaves, Nile Stanton, Mike Stewart, Bob Johnson, Rick Groshong, Mark Heinrich, Larry Wescott, Joan Porter, Gerry Bollman, Irwin Geller, Jeff Klein, Gregory Meade, Michael O'Hara, Brendan Schulman, Paul Burns, Bill Briggs, Marc Zwick, Richard Hamister, David Underwood, James Kautz, Harold Brief, Dale Stewart, Larry Lloyd, James Champagne, Brian Mertens, Trevor Fulton, Jared Watson, Mordecai Bobrowsky, Dominika Lamkiewicz, Rob Jackman, Jeremiah Kane and Mendl Malkin. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: President Bush owes his supporters a nominee in the Scalia-Thomas mold.
• Brendan Miniter: Why not Justice Janice Rogers Brown?
• Joel Henning: Robots, gadgets and high-tech games at Wired magazine's NextFest.