WASHINGTON — I cannot rid from my mind the name
Alioto, Judge Samuel Alioto. That is the name of
Judge Samuel Alito as pronounced by the delightful Senator Edward
Kennedy, or is it Eduardo Kennedino? No, it is simply Teddy, and he
is as entertaining as any U.S. senator since the days of the soused
Southerners, who would tipple their way through the dreamy days on
Capitol Hill, rousing themselves for histrionic oratory in the
mid-afternoon and then slumping back into their seats, awaiting the
late afternoon hour when they would all gather in one or another’s
chambers for a “restorative” — then on to dinner.
Teddy, in this health-mad era, is a throwback to the Senate’s
post-Prohibition 1930s. Anyone who watched him during the Senate
Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Alioto or Alito or whatever
the hell his name is must have gleaned that Teddy had hardly a clue
as to what he was doing. His set speeches were written for him by
brainy staff members who will soon move on to Washington law firms
or lobbying outfits, all becoming polite versions (Democratic
versions, that is) of the hellish Abramoff or Abraham Hoff or
whatever his name might be. This gluttonous rogue, bursting out of
his overcoat as he waddles from court appearances to his waiting
car, is a scandalous figure to be sure. Jack Abramoff stands at the
end of a long line of such shabby fixers. One of Abramoff’s
predecessors whose name was on the tongue of every Washington
watcher in the early 1980s was Tongsun Park of Abscam fame. (That
scandal occasioned the expulsion of the first House member since
1861, the Hon. Michael Myers, Democrat from Pennsylvania.) Park has
just been indicted for one of the many U.N. scandals. Possibly
Abramoff has a future at the U.N.
Park, Abramoff, they come and go, but the Democratic fixers
remain. When they do trip up, the Kultursmog simply ignores their
indiscretions. In the 1990s we had an entire presidential
administration of fixers, with the chief fixers seated right at the
top, Bill and Hillary. Last week Independent Counsel David Barrett
(one of seven Independent Counsels from the Clinton years)
delivered up his final report detailing the Clinton
administration’s bullying exertions to fix both an IRS
investigation and Independent Counsel Barrett’s investigation. As
yet hardly a ripple of interest has troubled the serene waters of
this great city. The media for the most part missed the fact that
some 120 pages of the report were redacted. In fact the New
York Times was so oblivious that it actually reported that the
Barrett Report was the “full report,” a judicial panel having,
according to the Times, “ordered a full disclosure.”
Certainly the silver-haired Teddy is not interested in the
Barrett Report. He is interested in Ali Oto, the Islamic terrorist
whom the Bush administration has nominated for the Supreme Court.
Thundering and blubbering during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s
grilling of the bemused nominee, Teddy stumbled over questions that
were supposed to reveal dreadful revelations about the judge. The
Democrats discovered that as a young Princetonian in the early
1970s he was a party to something called Concerned Alumni of
Princeton. Teddy, Senator Charles Schumer, and their colleagues now
call this “a radical group.” I actually remember the groups from
those days that were called “radical.” They committed mayhem,
destroyed university buildings, and at the end of their idealistic
saga robbed banks. One actually destroyed the ROTC building at
Princeton. They were on the left, not the right; and liberal
Democrats in those days admired their “ideals” if not their
methods.
As Judge whatever his name is proceeds to confirmation in the
Senate, it is worth observing that all the issues the Democrats
have raised about him are false issues. As for abortion, the
Supreme Court will never overturn it. The Court has already
adjudged it constitutional and it will take a constitutional
amendment to change that decision, then most likely state action.
The Democrats’ fear of “judicial activism” from a conservative
Supreme Court is also a false issue. The conservatives on the court
believe in judicial restraint, not activism. Their point is that
they are restrained by the law. Changing the law is in the hands of
legislators such as the delightful Senator Kennedino, who during
his Judiciary Committee performance blubbered that “this nominee
was influenced by the Goldwater presidency.” Damn, I love this
man.
