Last week we got to watch Teddy’s jowls a’ quivering. They had reason to be. For all the world to see, his attempts to disparage a judicial nominee whose intellect by comparison made his appear diminimus were failing, and I think he knew it. Teddy, in conspiracy with the likes of Senators Patrick J. Leahy, Dianne Feinstein and other Democrats, was doing his best to thwart the nomination of Judge Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. In the end, however, all he succeeded in doing was embarrassing himself.

Teddy and his cohorts were visibly troubled on the numerous occassions they necessarily found themselves sparring with Alito on subjects in which they were clearly out of their league, like anything having to do with jurisprudence. Consequently, we witnessed them repeatedly resorting to things like spewing forth about what no doubt was their favorite subject -- themselves. For example, ... when Senator Leahy found himself getting tripped up by Alito on the subject of search warrants, ended up using a good deal of what remained of his allotted time talking about his achievments in light of his family’s humble beginnings – as if anyone cared. By the end one might have thought the Senator was going to ask us to believe that his ancestors were so poor they had to collectively suck syrup from Vermont maple trees in order to survive their ten mile barefoot walks to school in the snow.

Yet, we digress. Returning to the jiggling jowls of Kennedy, to me his concern about the rights of a minor who had been strip-searched pursuant to a search warrant approved by Alito appeared uninformed, if not hypocritical. Kennedy hoped to portray Alito as a man who supported the idea of strip searching minors, but, in doing so, he left out pertinent details that, when provided by Alito, made Kennedy’s position look ludicrous. It turned out that when the warrant was issued the judge had been informed by the police that the suspect had been known to conceal narcotics on other people he associated with. So, with that in mind, the police sought and obtained the judge’s approval to search all who might be present at the scene. Under these circumstances, would Kennedy immunize all minors from being searched, and if so, what might that tell criminals in the future where would be a good place to hide their dope if they were to anticipated being raided by the police?

Additionally, one might also find it worth considering that, prior to the warrant’s issuance, Alito informed us that the judge had no reason to forsee that it would result in the search of a minor – any more, say, than Kennedy had of forseeing that Mary Jo Kopeckne would survive in a car at the bottom of a river for the several hours Kennedy used after he put her there to cover his own butt. Yet, during the period of time that it took for her to ultimately drown, it would appear that nobody, much less the good Senator, made any effort to come forward to champion her right to continue living, did they?

Okay, I concede that I may be comparing apples and oranges. There may be some who think that Mary Jo’s right to not die should not compare in importance to the right of a child present at a drug house to be free from being searched. But, wait a minute. Let’s not forget we are also talking about the same Senator Kennedy who several years later was reported to have been parading around his Florida compound in his underwear on the evening that one of his nephews openly engaged in sexual activity with a woman at the same location – a woman who subsequently alleged that she had been raped. Is anyone able to remember whether the Senator demonstrated any sympathy for that woman’s rights either? I can’t. All I seem to recall in that regard was the Senator’s unquestioned support of the alleged rapist.

Again I concede, however, I might yet again be comparing apples and oranges. It is possible that some reasonable people (though not me) could believe that certain rights of women – in particular the rights of women not only to remain alive, but also to be free from sexual assault – should not be compared to the more important rights of children found at a drug houses to not be subject to a police search. And I must concede further that those who would hold this view might also argue (as I am sure some will) that what might appear to be illogical to the simple-minded about the Senator’s contradictory positions regarding these events does not necessarily make him a hypocrite. But wait. Before laying the subject of Kennedy’s hypocrisy to rest, would we not be remiss if we did not include in our analysis his support for things like late-term abortion? Wouldn’t that present us with yet another confusing contradiction by compelling us to conclude that if the drug house child whose rights Kennedy championed last week were found instead to have been located anywhere in his mother’s birth canal, that child not only could be searched, but also could have its brains sucked out of it with the Senator’s whole-hearted approval? And if so, don’t you think that might justify finding the Senator to be just a tad hypocritical?

Let’s face it. The primary reason motivating democrats to thwart the Alito’s nomination is to protect abortion – an agenda summarized concisely by the following admonition reported last Saturday in the Washington Times: “Abortion rights activist Kate Michelman warned against confirming [Alito].” That is their right if that’s how they feel and I say so be it if they pursue their goals honestly. But when such people like Kennedy attempt to advance that agenda by pretending to champion the rights of children, they shouldn’t be allowed to pretend it isn’t hypocritical. In fact, the magnitude of the hypocrisy is so great that it would likely cause any normal person to experience a gut wrenching repulsion at even the thought of trying to pull it off undetected. Sadly, however, as we witnessed, the only sensation Kennedy appeared to experience was a quivering of his jowls.

© 2005 Clifford C. Nichols, Esq.

Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense/entertainment law in Santa Monica, California. He may be contacted regarding this editorial at either (310) 917-1083, cliff@cliffnicholslaw.com or www.cliffnicholslaw.com and you may join his blog at www.thedailystand.com