by JAMES TARANTO
Friday, September 9, 2005 4:45 P.M. EDT

Justice Dinh
Now that President Bush has announced that Judge John Roberts will replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he must appoint a replacement for Roberts as a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As Manuel Miranda noted yesterday, the common assumption has been that he will choose either a woman or a member of an ethnic minority, especially a Hispanic. We'd like to suggest a candidate who fits the "minority" requirement, although he isn't a Hispanic: Viet Dinh.

Dinh is a professor at Georgetown Law School and served for two years as an assistant attorney general. His academic specialties, according to his Justice Department bio, cover a broad range: constitutional law, corporation law, and the law and economics of development. The Georgetown press release announcing his return to academia in 2003 notes his governmental accomplishments:

Dinh led the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy since May 31, 2001, and in that time, he contributed to a number of key Administration policy initiatives most notably in the drafting and implementing of the USA PATRIOT Act. He also spearheaded the revision of the Attorney General's Guidelines, which govern the conduct of federal law enforcement activities and national security investigations. In addition, Dinh represented the Department of Justice in the process of selecting and confirming judges to the federal bench, securing the confirmation of 23 United States Court of Appeals and 100 District Court judges in the past two years.

Why Viet Dinh? He's young: 37 to be exact. If he lives as long as William Rehnquist, he could still be on the court in 2048. He has a compelling personal story: born in Saigon, South Vietnam, in 1968, he came to America as a refugee at age 10 after his country fell to the communists. His experience in the Justice Department would give the Democrats a chance to highlight their compassion for terrorists, something Republicans would no doubt appreciate too.

And he would be the first Asian Supreme Court justice, which means the Democrats, who are sure to come under pressure to wage a futile campaign against any Bush nominee, could alienate a small but up-for-grabs voting bloc in the process.

A Dinh nomination could also create awkward situations for both the Democrats' 2004 and 2008 presidential nominees. John Kerry* began his political career by confessing (albeit probably falsely) to having committed war crimes against Dinh's countrymen. He also made comments about the Vietnamese that to a 21st-century ear sound shockingly racist:

Most [Vietnamese] people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart.

As for Hillary Clinton, she cast the lone dissenting vote when the Senate confirmed Dinh to the Justice Department in May 2001. Her opposition to Dinh was personal, not racial: During Clinton's co-presidency, Dinh worked for the Whitewater independent counsel's office. On the same day, Sen. Clinton also cast the only vote against Michael Chertoff's confirmation to another Justice Department post; Chertoff had worked for the Senate's Whitewater committee. In June 2003 Mrs. Clinton again cast the lone dissenting vote when Chertoff was confirmed as a judge on the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But this February Hillary buried the hatchet and voted for Chertoff when the president chose him for a high-profile position, secretary of homeland security. We're guessing she'd do the same thing for Justice Dinh--but she'd be choking back bile all the while.

* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam.

Justice Luttig
The New York Times reports that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is listing prospective nominees he would oppose as replacements for Justice O'Connor:

Although Mr. Reid has not taken a position on Judge Roberts, he recently made clear that he would object to several of the names reported to be on the president's short list for the other court seat: the federal appeals court judges J. Michael Luttig, Emilio M. Garza and Edith H. Jones.

"Senator Reid doesn't feel that someone such as either Luttig, Garza or Jones, among others, would be a suitable replacement for Justice O'Connor," his spokesman, Jim Manley, said Thursday.

We're partial to Jones, whom we've met, but an Associated Press dispatch gives a reason for enthusiasm about Luttig:

A federal appeals court today sided with the Bush administration and reversed a judge's order that the government either charge or free "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla.

The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the president has the authority to detain a U.S. citizen closely associated with al-Qaida.

"The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war," Judge Michael Luttig wrote. "We conclude that the President does possess such authority."

The decision is here, in PDF.

Padilla was captured at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after flying in from Pakistan, and U.S. authorities believe he planned to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in an American city. A Luttig nomination would be worth it just to see if Illinois's Sen. Dick Durbin--who has likened American soldiers to Nazis--rises to Padilla's defense.

Race and Rain
Here's an interesting perspective on race as it pertains to the Katrina disaster:

Because they don't see blacks as a current or potential constituency, [President] Bush and his fellow Republicans do not respond out of the instinct of self-interest when dealing with their concerns. Helping low-income blacks is a matter of charity to them, not necessity. The condescension in their attitude intensifies when it comes to New Orleans, which is 67 percent black and largely irrelevant to GOP political ambitions.

Black voters could respond to the devastation of Katrina by asking themselves: Is this what we get for supporting Democrats for 40 years?

What makes this interesting is that we've actually run together material from two different sources. The first paragraph quoted above is from Slate's Jake Weisberg, explaining Bush's purported lack of concern for blacks and hence his supposed slowness in responding to Katrina. The second paragraph is from our item yesterday in which we engaged in some contrarian speculation about the political effects of Katrina.

Now, Weisberg's premise doesn't really make sense: After all, last Monday, when President Bush supposedly was unconcerned as the hurricane made landfall, it looked as if New Orleans had been spared and largely white counties in Mississippi hardest hit. Moreover, if the president neglected New Orleans, he also neglected its mostly white suburbs.

Yet Weisberg does point toward a larger truth: The political isolation of black Americans is bad for America, and much worse for blacks. The Associated Press has a quote from radio host Tavis Smiley that captures the futility of black politics in the post-civil rights era:

"I've seen black folk come together around any number of issues. It's usually either a head or a heart issue," he said. "For example, we came together after the election of 2000, when Bush essentially stole the election. That was a head issue. People were mad. Other issues hit our hearts; O.J. Simpson comes to mind."

The political position of blacks today is oddly similar to that of postbellum Southern whites, who had one-party Democratic government at a time when (until FDR) the country was predominately Republican, and whose politics centered on racial and historical grievance. It is a historical irony that in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Southern whites moved into the political mainstream while blacks, although finally enfranchised, became political outliers to an unprecedented extent.

This will doubtless change eventually, though when and how is anyone's guess. Here's one interesting guess, from (of all sources) New York Post gossip columnist Cindy Adams (last item):

A political brain who feeds not on carbs, proteins and antioxidants but on bile, acidity and antihypocrisy, puts forth this following unhealthy meal to feast upon:

Hurricane Katrina will dramatically alter future elections. Because, posited this political brain, the poorest of those who previously dwelt in one area but were then displaced--and this means citizens who average $8,000 a year income--are now spread over several states. Most would be considered Democrats, even though many never voted. They now--under a Republican administration that's paying serious attention--will receive public assistance, free housing, food stamps, access to medical treatment, first-time voter registration instruction, etc. Modern civilization's biggest giveaway will be the trigger in the fight for their souls.

Even New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, a shrill opponent of all things Republican, acknowledges that New Orleans was a failed city even when it was dry, its people "shamefully neglected by all levels of government." Its public schools were among "the worst in the nation"; crime was rampant and "has never been properly dealt with":

New Orleans has had high rates of illiteracy and high rates of poverty, and long before the hurricane blew in, high rates of children and families with extraordinarily low expectations. In short, much of the city was a mess, and no one was marshaling the considerable resources necessary to help pull its stricken residents out of the trouble of their daily lives.

Herbert is a pessimist: "I'd be surprised--given the history of this country--if that were to change now." But New Orleans's problem is less "the history of this country" than decades of one-party government.

Did New Orleans Dodge a Bullet?
Pray, cross your fingers, or whatever it is you do, that this Associated Press dispatch from New Orleans holds up:

Authorities said Friday that their first systematic sweep of the city found far fewer bodies than expected, suggesting that Hurricane Katrina's death toll may not be the catastrophic 10,000 feared.

"I think there's some encouragement in what we've found in the initial sweeps that some of the catastrophic deaths that some people predicted may not have occurred," said Terry Ebbert, New Orleans' homeland security chief.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports on a fatuous physician's opposition to the war on terror (scare quotes in original):

The U.S. "war on terror" is saving fewer lives than just spending the money on disease prevention and research, and has probably caused deaths by taking money away from basic services, an expert said on Thursday.

The accusation is not new, but Dr. Erica Frank of the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta said she has calculated the cost, in terms of lives, of the Bush administration's terror policies. . . .

On September 11, 2001, 3,400 people died because of the four intentional plane crashes in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. But 5,200 other Americans died that same day from common diseases, according to Frank. . . .

Yet more money is spent to protect against deaths that are not likely to happen.

"For example, in September 2002, New York was awarded $1.3 million to reduce heart disease, the leading killer of New Yorkers, while $34 million was awarded for bioterrorism preparedness in the state," Frank added.

By Frank's logic, if it turns out that the death toll in New Orleans is in the hundreds or even a few thousand, we would be better off dispensing with hurricane preparedness and spending all that money on medical research instead.

Brown Out?
Michael Brown has not been fired as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but he's off the Katrina beat, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announces in a press release:

I have directed Mike Brown to return to administering FEMA nationally, and I have appointed Vice Admiral Thad Allen of the Coast Guard as the Principal Federal Official (PFO) overseeing Hurricane Katrina response and recovery effort in the field. Joe Picciano will continue to be deputy PFO in Baton Rouge to support Admiral Allen's efforts.

As we said yesterday, we have neither an informed opinion about Brown nor the inclination to develop one. But the calls for his firing have been so loud and hysterical that we're inclined to side against them out of a sheer aversion to mobocracy. If indeed Brown was in over his head, Chertoff's solution may be the ideal one--bringing in somebody better without succumbing to the mob and firing Brown in haste.

Life Imitates 'The Office'

"Rainn Wilson plays Dwight Schrute (Gareth in the UK version), a geeky and obnoxious office brown-noser who constantly has to be reminded by Scott that he is not the Assistant Regional Manager, but Assistant to the Regional Manager."--Blogcritics.org review of "The Office" TV series DVD, Aug. 26

"Bush administration documents have credited [Michael] Brown with overseeing emergency services while working for the city of Edmond, Okla., in the mid-1970s. Brown's official biography on the FEMA Web site says he served as 'an assistant city manager.' But a former mayor of Edmond, Randel Shadid, told AP on Friday that Brown had been an assistant to the city manager--never assistant city manager."--Associated Press, Sept. 9

How Can He Sculpt at a Time Like This?
"Bush Faces New Questions on Relief"--headline, Reuters, Sept. 9

Republicans Surge in Zogby Poll
Zogby International has conducted a very weird poll, pitting President Bush against his four predecessors and his actual opponent from the last election. The results are very bad news for the Democrats:

Note that the total vote for Republicans ranges from 42% (in the Carter match-up) to 79% (in the Reagan match-up), whereas Democrats do no better than 50%. And the most popular candidate of all is Ronald Reagan, not only a Republican but a dead Republican. Who says Americans don't believe in small government?

** Fop cit.

Osama Six-Pack
The House yesterday passed an anodyne resolution commemorating the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. It extended sympathy to the victims and survivors; honored the military, first responders, and others who helped; thanked foreign leaders for their support; declared that America is not waging war "on any people or any faith"; reaffirmed a commitment to the global war on terrorism; and vowed "never [to] forget the sacrifices made" on 9/11 or to "bow to terrorist demands."

No one could disagree with that, right? Not quite. The House vote for the resolution was 402-6; here are the six far-left Democrats who voted "no":

• John Conyers (Mich.)
• Barbara Lee (Calif.)
• Jim McDermott (Wash.)
• Cynthia McKinney (Ga.)
• Pete Stark (Calif.)
• Lynn Woolsey (Calif.)

What Would We Do Without Cherie?
"Islamic Stance on Women Can Be Oppressive, Cherie Says"--headline, Daily Telegraph (London), Sept. 9

That's a Lot of Fabric
"Suit Would Protect Woodpecker Habitat"--headline, CNN.com, Sept. 9

Go Team!

"Raiders Free American Captive"--headline, Chicago Tribune, Sept. 8

"Patriots Roll Over Raiders"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 9

We Guess We'll Bet on the Panthers
"Teams Find New Orleans Holdouts Wavering"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 8

Fat Mainiacs
Why are they so obese Down East? Steve McKelvey of Minot, Maine, has a theory, which he expounds in the Portland Press Herald (last letter):

Is it just a coincidence that, among our New England brethren, Maine is the only state to not have a law banning discrimination against gay people, and we are the fattest of the New England states?

As recent news relates, a possible reason for Maine's relatively heavier population is the known fact that obesity is increasingly linked to higher rates of poverty. And, of the New England states, Maine is the poorest.

Poverty rates are also inextricably linked to rates of educational achievement among a certain population.

Insofar as rates of obesity and poverty go, sadly, we have more in common with Alabama and Mississippi than Vermont and New Hampshire.

Of the 16 states that ban discrimination against gay people, you can bet that Alabama and Mississippi are not among them.

What conclusions are to be drawn by the people of Maine? On issues as varied as educational achievement, obesity, poverty and discrimination against gay people, would the good people of Maine rather be more like New Hampshire and Vermont?

Or more like Alabama and Mississippi?

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that Men's Fitness magazine has rated Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, America's "fittest college campus":

BYU graduate student Jeff Dixon, 26, who lifts weights about four times a week, said regular workouts do more than just whittle his middle. It also helps in life's mental games.

"When I feel good, it helps me in school. It helps me have a crisp, sharp mind," he said.

He also thinks the early marriage-age of most Mormons plays a role.

"Most of us get married in college, so . . . maybe we do it just for the opposite sex, so we can catch a wife," he said with a laugh.

Oh, now we get it: McKelvey's point is that physically fit people are more likely to be gay as in cheerful.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Doug Levene, Michael Segal, David Howell, Julie Kesselman, C.E. Dobkin, Jim Kirkwood, Scott Liesch, Jonathan Henry, Ruth Papazian, Dan O'Shea, Michael Zukerman, William Katz, Mike Bubb, John Williamson, Bruce Campbell, Jonathan Odom, Matthew McInteer, Dennis Snyder, Chuck Gitles, Leonora LaMantia, James Childs, Max Koss, Daniel Goldstein, Graham Jones, Michael Lieber, Nicholas Zeisler, Brian O'Rourke, William Love, Andrew Robinson, Skip King and Shelley Taylor. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: The U.N.'s worst critics couldn't invent what the Volcker report shows.
• Daniel Henninger: The Pentagon was prepared for Hurricane Katrina.
• Manuel Miranda: Pennsylvania's very different senators are the keystones of Judge Roberts's confirmation.
• Mark Helprin: Four years after 9/11, Washington keeps courting strategic error.
• The Journal Editorial Report: Tune in this weekend for a discussion of Katrina's consequences.

And on the Taste page:

• Review & Outlook: After 9/11 and Katrina, let's celebrate courage without wallowing in gloom.
• Tony & Tacky: Tombstone may lose its listing; Maryland troopers break ticketing records.
• Naomi Riley: Celebrating 350 years of Jewish life in the New World.
• Kay Hymowitz: Making adoption more open can't erase the emotional problems it sometimes causes.
• Tony Carnes: The newest Jewish immigrants vote Republican.