The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote today on Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, which the senators are expected to send to the floor with a party-line vote. But “yes or no” isn’t the only division we’ll see as the full Senate takes up the confirmation later this week. Americans will also have a front row seat as the radical “chaff” in American politics separates itself from the kernels of American “wheat.” Already Democrats on the committee showcased their terror of the voters, as we noted in our editorial, “What the Democrats Fear.” In their panic they are advocating an agenda that is bound to marginalize them further.

The New York Times leads the radical charge, issuing yesterday an editorial entitled “Judge Alito’s Radical Views.” It’s an illuminating piece for its enumeration of what supposedly counts as “mainstream” these days. Affirming the president’s constitutionally granted authorities to prosecute an existential war is apparently a “radical” trait, at least up on 43rd Street. So is suggesting that, if Congress is going to regulate something, the Court, if not the Congress, should at least consider what authority, if any, was delegated under the Commerce Clause. If being “radical” means believing in enumerated, delegated and separated powers, sign us up.

One doesn’t read those bedrock phrases much in the Times, or hear about them from the Democrats for whom the Times speaks, but that doesn’t make those who do echo the language and the ideas of the Founders fringe elements. The Democrats and the Times are in the liberal bubble. There’s a reason privacy, per se, is not in the Constitution, and we doubt it’s coincidental that two-thirds of Americans say that privacy concerns should take a back seat to the war on terror at least some of the time, even if a majority are still skeptical of the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program.

While a majority of Americans say they support basic abortion rights, the vast majority are also willing to sanction some restrictions, such as waiting periods, bans on partial-birth abortion, and certain kinds of parental and spousal notification. The notification provisions Judge Alito voted to uphold in his controversial abortion dissent from the Third Circuit were drafted by a Democratic governor and passed by a wide majority in a democratically elected legislature. Seeking to tar Judge Alito with “radicalism” says more about the liberal interest groups like the Times editorial board than it does about the nominee.