Drudge is reporting that Stephen R. Dujack will be the Democrats key smear witness to try to pin racism and sexism on Alito because of his membership in the Concerned Alumnni of Princeton.

Here is an article written by Dujack in the Daily Princetonian.

At the very least, Judge Alito will have to explain to the Senate Judiciary Committee why he paid dues to an outfit whose modus operandi was deceit and dirty tricks. He will have to explain how he permitted himself to belong to an organization that was overtly racist and sexist for its entire 14-year existence ­— at times passionately so, too.

Dujack also wrote an op-ed in the Star Ledger.

Alito tried to sidestep the issue by claiming that he has “no recollection” of belonging to the group. That’s simply not credible. He certainly knew he was a member in 1985, when at the age of 35 he highlighted his membership in the group in order to establish his far- right bona fides in an application for a promotion in the Reagan Justice Department.

But Dujack is also the same man who wrote this, in April of 2003 in the LA Times.

Committee for Justice: “Perhaps they had an epiphany that it was not so good to have an expert witness in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing who compares animals killed for food to victims of 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? Did the fact that lampshades, soaps and other “useful” products were made from their bodies excuse the Holocaust? No. Pain is pain.

That same month, Dujack seemed to be on the warpath comparing animals to Jews, even proudly citing his grandfather.

My grandfather Isaac was a principled vegetarian. Based on his personal experiences, he was one of the first to equate the wholesale slaughter of humans to that which we perpetrate against animals every day in slaughterhouses. He attributed to a character in one of his stories something he believed himself: “In relation to animals, all people are Nazis. For them, it is an eternal Treblinka,” the forced labor camp near his home town of Warsaw.

So the Democrats are bringing in someone who equates slaughtering animals with slaughtering Jews (”not only appropriate, but inescapable”) to accuse Alito of racism. This one has the potential of a big backfire.

UPDATE: Looks like Drudge has old info. Kathryn Lopez reported last night that Dujack has been removed from an updated witness list. (Via Martin) Fox also has this info.

Capital Research notes: “Surely someone forgot to perform a background check on Mr. Dujack.”

Hinderaker adds: “The Democrats have gotten so used to making wild charges that I wonder whether they even bother to read their own propaganda. The decision to admit women at formerly all-male schools like Princeton was indeed controversial, but the Democrats’ suggestion that CAP “oppos[ed] Princeton’s decision to admit minorities” is ridiculous.”

Oklahomily slams: “No wonder he’s on the star witness list; he’s a perfect example of what passes for intellectual rigor for liberals these days.”

Committee for Justice: “Perhaps they had an epiphany that it was not so good to have an expert witness in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing who compares animals killed for food to victims of the Holocaust.”

The Anchoress excoriates: “This is downright indecent. Yes. Indecent. To try to destroy someone on something this flimsy, in the name of partisan politics is, finally, INDECENT. And it hypocritically smacks of the sort of “McCarthyism” the Democrats are SUPPOSED to deplore.”

Ace of Spades: “… is this all there is? This is what they’re pinning their hopes on? Affirmative action in the form of quotas and “plus factors” is neither especially popular nor very productive as policy, and I can’t imagine that America is going to be horrified at someone who was a member of a group opposed to it. Even most of those who support the policy have a bit of queasiness at the expressly racially-based “plus factors” awarded to candidates based on the color of their skin.”

Right Winged: “They remind me of kids who protest because they don’t like their babysitter. Is it just me, or does it seem like the only thing the Dems show up to work for these days is to oppose anything to do with the President?”

Stop the ACLU: “If this report is true, the democrats are showing just how low they will go. Hang on tight folks, its gonna be a rough ride from here on out.”

The Captain sums it all up.

They have fifteen years of judicial opinions and records, and they can’t find anything to disqualify Alito. The ABA unanimously voted him “well qualified” in all areas, including ethics and temperament. The only people they can find to sling mud at Alito are the kind of lunatics that equate eating meat with the genocide of six million Jews. That should tell them something about their chances of stopping Alito, and should convince them to admit that Bush has nominated a well-qualified jurist who deserves confirmation.

Huh? Better than “whale tail” or “muffin top” I guess.