by JAMES TARANTO
Monday, January 9, 2006 3:01 P.M. EST

Fruitless Feminism
Hearings opened today for Justice-designate Samuel Alito, beginning with endless hours of windbaggery from Senate Judiciary Committee members. Poor Alito is forced to sit still for all of it. If Alito were a terrorist, Sen. Dick Durbin would compare himself to a Nazi.

"Meet the Press" yesterday raised the curtain by bringing on abortion advocate Kate Michelman to debate National Review's Kate O'Beirne. Here's a sample:

Michelman: I think that the conservative movement has spent a lot of years denigrating, demonizing feminism, and the word has received a lot of flak for--interesting--for a simple belief in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes. I mean, that's what feminism was and is about and continues to be important in addressing the inequities in society that exist for women. And I don't think feminism is dead. I do agree that the word has been so demonized that many young women don't identify with the word, but interestingly enough, the irony is that even though some young women don't identify with the label feminism--actually, they're rejecting all kinds of labels today--they fully embrace the ideals that feminism set forth; you know, equal opportunity, equal education, equal pay, reproductive freedom and choice, the right to determine the course of one's life. That is what feminism was really about. . . .

Tim Russert: Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party said this recently: "I think we need to talk about abortion differently. . . . Republicans have forced us into a corner to defend abortion." Then he went on to say: "If I could strike the words 'choice' and 'abortion' out of the lexicon of our party, I would." . . .

Are the Democrats changing their vocabulary on abortion, because to Kate [O'Beirne]'s point, the political--the politics are changing?

Michelman: You know, I think those public comments and that public angsting [sic] after the 2004 presidential election was unfortunate because the principle that underlies a pro-choice position are the principles of dignity and privacy for women. Abortion rights and reproductive freedom and choice needs to be seen in the larger context of individual liberties, of women determining the course of their lives and having control over their lives. I think that was unfortunate.

Well, let's say you're a middle-aged feminist who unintentionally got pregnant in 1987--the year the Senate rejected Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court--and in a dignified, private manner, you exercised your individual liberties to determine the course of your life and have control over your life--which is to say, you aborted the kid.

That means you don't have a daughter who is about to turn 18, old enough to vote this November for politicians who have a simple belief in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes. The Roe effect strikes again! Perhaps this is one reason why Alito comes before a Senate with a 55-45 Republican majority, whereas Bork faced a 54-46 Democratic majority a generation ago. Or a termination ago, as the case may be.

Race to the Bottom
The primary reason Bork was borked, of course, was not abortion but race. In 1964 Bork had written an article for The New Republic arguing against the Civil Rights Act. He made his case on limited-government grounds, not racial ones, but it was enough for liberal Democrats to portray him as a racist, and it cost him the votes of all but one of the 16 Democratic senators from the South, many of whom were not abortion enthusiasts, but almost all of whom could not win re-election without a big black turnout.

The race card would not seem a promising tactic against Alito. After all, the Jersey jurist was 14 in 1964, and today a cartoon character could count the number of Southern Democrats remaining in the Senate. But the Dems have to make the "base" happy, so they're going to try.

According to the Drudge Report, they plan to make an issue of Alito's long-ago membership in a group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton:

Alito will testify that he joined CAP as a protest over Princeton policy that would not allow the ROTC on campus.

The Drudge Report has obtained a Summer 1982 article from CAP's Prospect magazine titled "Smearing The Class Of 1957" that key Senate Democrats believe could thwart his nomination!

In the article written by then Prospect editor Frederick Foote, Foote writes: "The facts show that, for whatever reasons, whites today are more intelligent than blacks."

Senate Democrats expect excerpts like this written by other Princeton graduates will be enough to torpedo the Alito nomination.

One Democrat Hill staffer involved in their strategy declared, "Put a fork in Scalito [sic]. It doesn't matter that Alito didn't write it, it doesn't matter that Alito wasn't that active in the group, Foote wrote it in CAP's magazine and we are going to make Alito own it."

Blogger "TigerHawk" has much more background. Drudge notes that the Democrats included on their witness list (scroll to bottom) one Stephen R. Dujack, "the editor of an environmental magazine in Washington and a freelance writer," who has been a CAP foe since the 1980s. In 2003 Dujack wrote an article for the Los Angeles Times in which he defended the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' likening of meat production to the Holocaust:

Like the victims of the Holocaust, animals are rounded up, trucked hundreds of miles to the kill floor and slaughtered. Comparisons to the Holocaust are not only appropriate but inescapable because, whether we wish to admit it or not, cows, chickens, pigs and turkeys are as capable of feeling loneliness, fear, pain, joy and affection as we are. To those who defend the modern-day holocaust on animals by saying that animals are slaughtered for food and give us sustenance, I ask: If the victims of the Holocaust had been eaten, would that have justified the abuse and murder?

The Washington Times reports that the Democrats quickly yanked Dujack after his screwball views became known. But this shows the dangers of their guilt-by-association methods, doesn't it? Ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat Patrick Leahy "owns" Dujack's trivialization of the Holocaust every bit as much as Alito "owns" Foote's racial views.

Goldwater on the Brain
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank reports that one Judiciary Committee member needs a refresher course in recent history:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), hosting a morning roundtable with reporters, had nothing nice to say about Alito. "We here in the United States are not going to stand for monarchial tyranny," he said, protesting Alito's support for "unfettered, unlimited power of the executive." He faulted Alito for belonging to a group that was "anti-black and also anti-women." Kennedy wondered if "the average person is going to be able to get a fair shake" under Alito.

Briefly, Kennedy rewrote the outcome of the 1964 election. "This nominee was influenced by the Goldwater presidency," he said. "The Goldwater battles of those times were the battles against the civil rights laws." Only then did Kennedy acknowledge that "Judge Alito at that time was 14 years old."

What's Kennedy's excuse? He was 32 and already in the Senate when Barry Goldwater, a fellow senator, lost his only race for the presidency by a landslide.

There seems to be a lot of this about. Robert Kuttner, a left-wing Boston Globe columnist, writes that "the Democrats have 45 senators (counting independent Bernie Sanders)." In fact Sanders, an admitted socialist, is a member of the House, though he is running for the Senate seat now held by Jim Jeffords.

And an editorial in the New York Times--faulting president Bush for using "a constitutional gimmick"--i.e., recess appointments, which have been part of the nation's charter since 1787--states that "the Senate has been under Republican control for Mr. Bush's entire five years in office." Not so. Thanks to Jeffords, Democrats held a bare majority from May 2001 until January 2003.

(Hat tips: Tom Elia and Steve Bartin.)

Men of Letters
"A group of prominent law professors released a letter . . . signed by over 500 law professors in opposition to the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito to the Supreme Court," according to a press release from the extremist group Alliance for Justice. What the press release doesn't tell us, however, is how many law professors didn't sign the list. We have no idea how many law professors there are in America, but we selected one law school at random--Harvard--to make an estimate.

The letter (link in PDF) lists three Harvard professors among the 500-odd signatories. The Harvard faculty directory lists 199 members. That means roughly 98.49% of Harvard's faculty did not sign the letter. If the same proportions hold for the nationwide law professoriat, that means that some 32,612 law professors either support Alito, are neutral on the nomination, or don't oppose him strongly enough to sign the letter.

Oh, and what's more, at least one name on the letter is Bogus.

Moonbat Harmonic Convergence
"It's all fruit." That's Nancy Pelosi's answer to the terror threat, according to Time's Joe Klein:

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat, engaged in a small but cheesy bit of deception last week. She released a letter, which quickly found its way to the front page of the New York Times, that she had written on Oct. 11, 2001, to then National Security Agency director General Michael V. Hayden. In it she expressed concern that Hayden, who had briefed the House Intelligence Committee about the steps he was taking to track down al-Qaeda terrorists after the 9/11 attacks, was not acting with "specific presidential authorization." Hayden wrote her back that he was acting under the powers granted to his agency in a 1981 Executive Order. . . .

The release of Pelosi's letter last week and the subsequent Times story ("Agency First Acted on Its Own to Broaden Spying, Files Show") left the misleading impression that a) Hayden had launched the controversial data-mining operation on his own, and b) Pelosi had protested it. But clearly the program didn't exist when Pelosi wrote the letter. When I asked the Congresswoman about this, she said, "Some in the government have accused me of confusing apples and oranges. My response is, it's all fruit."

CNN reports that Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2 man, has "called on U.S. President George W. Bush to admit defeat in Iraq." This puts him on the same page as Ted Kennedy, John Murtha and Howard Dean. The Associated Press, meanwhile, reports on a message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of al Qaeda in Iraq, or, as the Democrats call it, al Qaeda Which Has Nothing to Do With Iraq in Iraq Which Has Nothing to Do With al Qaeda:

The Iraqi Al-Qaeda leader then laid down two conditions for giving up the jihad.

"First, chase out the invaders from our territory in Palestine, in Iraq and everywhere in Islamic land.

"Second, instal sharia (Islamic law) on the entire Earth and spread Islamic justice there (. . .). The attacks will not cease until after the victory of Islam and the setting up of sharia," he swore.

The first part of this echoes fascist fishwife Cindy Sheehan: "You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine." We're not sure of her position on global Shariah, but she has referred to terrorists as "freedom-fighters."

The wacko right is on board as well. In an online poll on the John Birch Society Web site, 69% agree with the proposition that President Bush should be impeached "because he lied us into war, has used the NSA to eavesdrop on the conversations of Americans without a court order, and has violated the Constitution in other ways."

Speaking of online polls, thanks to you Sheehan has taken a commanding lead for the Idiotarian of the Year award over at Little Green Footballs. As we write, she has 43.6%, to 29.5% for Hugo Chavez and 26.9% for the New York Times. If you haven't voted yet, there's still time, and wouldn't it be nice to push Sheehan over 50%? Click here to cast your vote; you have until 3 a.m. Eastern Time tomorrow.

The World's Smallest Violin
The Sacramento Bee reports on an appearance by actor Sean Penn at a rally for hate harpy Cindy Sheehan: "Penn said Bush and the war in Iraq have made it hard for him to give up his addiction to cigarettes. 'It makes it very difficult to quit smoking under this administration,' he said."

Mixed Signals
What do Bill Clinton and Pat Robertson have in common? The Associated Press provides one answer:

Clinton, in France for talks with President Jacques Chirac, said Israelis should view [Ariel] Sharon as an example.

"Mr. Sharon had not only withdrawn from Gaza, he had started a new party with the purpose of continuing to push for peace," Clinton said. "All of us who believe in peace in the Middle East are in his debt, and so more than anything else, I pray for his health."

The Israeli leader's illness "puts yet another obstacle in the path of the peacemakers," Clinton said. "And it's almost as if God were testing them one more time to rise again, to keep on."

Robertson, of course, suggested that God was punishing Sharon for dividing the Holy Land. Maybe Dick Morris has been giving the Lord advice on how to "triangulate."

'Overpromotion'
Here's a fascinating story originally from England's Daily Mail:

A black police bodyguard who protected the Duchess of Cornwall has won $70,000 [Australian, or around US$53,000] compensation after suing Scotland Yard for "over-promoting" him because of political correctness.

Sgt Leslie Turner--the first black personal protection officer to guard the royal family--will receive the "racial discrimination" payout after reaching an out-of-court settlement with London's Metropolitan Police.

His representatives argued he landed the prestigious job as Camilla's bodyguard only because he was black.

It was claimed that as a result of being over-promoted and not receiving proper training and support, Sgt Turner made mistakes which led to him being re-assigned.

This suggests a tantalizing line of legal attack for opponents of "affirmative action" in American higher education. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that, at least for the next 22 1/2 years, "diversity" is a "compelling" enough reason to justify discriminating at the margins against people of pallor. But what if a black student were to sue, claiming he had been admitted to, say, Harvard and done badly there because he was not held to the same high standard as other students?

Homelessness Rediscovery Watch

"If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition's arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation."--Mark Helprin, Oct. 31, 2000

"Homeless People to Get Super Bowl Party"--headline, Detroit Free Press, Jan. 7, 2006

He'll Wear Jersey No. XVI
"Pope to Enter NFL Draft"--headline, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jan. 7

And We Thought Only the Saints Were Displaced
"Dolphins Displaced by Katrina Get New Home"--headline, MSNBC.com, Jan. 6

Tuxedo to File Formal Charges
"Brooklyn Suit Accuses Bank of Terror Ties"--headline, WINS-AM Web site (New York), Jan. 6

This Just In
"Digital Video Is Here to Stay"--headline, CNN.com, Jan. 9

Thanks for the Tip!--XXXIV
"Health Tip: Steer Clear of Trucks"--headline, HealthDayNews, Jan. 9

That's One Sick Bird
"Turkey Now Has 15 Cases of Human Bird Flu"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 9

You Don't Say
"Tiny House + Mom-in-Law = Big Problem"--headline, BankRate.com, Jan. 7

The Onion Gets Scooped

"He Sets, She Sets: War of the Thermostat"--headline, Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 13

"Marital Frustrations Channeled Through Thermostat"--headline, Onion, Jan. 4

Glad They Cleared That Up
"A front-page article yesterday about a decision by numerous lawmakers to redirect political donations from the former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff to charities gave an incorrect name in some copies for a group in Mission, S.D., that received a $2,000 contribution from Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota. It is the White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, not the White Buffalo Woman Calf Society."--correction (second item), New York Times, Jan. 7

Could It Be That He's Decomposing?
"Mystery of 'Mozart's Skull' Still Unsolved"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 8

Bottom Story of the Day
"Don Imus Still Sober After 18 Years"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 7

Stranger Than Fiction
What do the senior senator from Massachusetts and quadruple murderer Stanley "Tookie" Williams have in common? The Associated Press provides one answer:

Meet the latest children's author, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his Portuguese Water Dog, Splash, his co-protagonist in "My Senator and Me: A Dogs-Eye View of Washington, D.C."

Scholastic Inc. will release the book in May.

So Ted Kennedy has a dog named Splash? How witty.

Mary Jo Kopechne's children could not be reached for comment.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Andy Phillips, Michael Segal, Roger Congdon, Allen O'Donnell, Bob Batts, Ed Lasky, Christian Peck, Steve Roberts, Arnold Nelson, John Steele Gordon, Jeffrey Manor, M. Gilbertson, Doug Levene, Paul Dyck, John Sitilides, John Williamson, Michael Hopkovitz, Steven Platzer, Neil Funkhouser, Paul Woods, Henry Doval, David Waghalter, Tom Linehan, Bill Briggs, Sandy Simpson, Greg de Mocsknyi, Chuck Opramolla, Joseph DeMartino, Ruth Papazian, Phli Hord, Sean O'Toole, David Cooper, C.E. Dobkin, Royal Dellinger, Stefan Sharkansky, Matt Bradley, Gary Petersen, S. Lynch, Michael Napier, William Schultz, Don Hubschman, Evan Slatis, Brian Azman, Brad Cleghorn, R.J. Sorce, Thomas Dillon, Boris Feldman, Charlie Gaylord, Brian Carlson and Jena Olsen. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: Incumbency over ideas is the House GOP's real problem.
• John Fund: The Abramoff scandal may sink congressional Republicans if they don't get serious about spending reforms.
• Ken Kersch: What Sam Alito and Louis Brandeis have in common.