Hmm, I wonder what Samuel Alito thinks of partial birth abortion? What is his definition of judicial activism? If he had to draw a diagram of the right to privacy, would he return a blank sheet of paper? What does his 90 year–old mother think about this?
Ah yes, the wonderful world of cable news. Its vast reservoir of knowledge is normally used only as fodder for that evening’s “Daily Show.” However, when questions like these trickle into the real world, partisans on both sides of the aisle need to turn off the TV and tone down the furor.
We know Alito’s personal views on abortion because his 90 year–old mother told reporters, “Of course he’s against abortion.” Making me glad I’m not the reporter who has to grill 90–year–old women on their sons’ philosophy on jurisprudence. But as evidenced by his nuanced record on the issue, supporting notification for the husband and upholding partial birth abortion, it is hard to claim he is an activist when it comes to applying the law.
Abortion rights are an important issue to some. But they can’t be considered the paramount issue facing our society. Political debate in the real word shouldn’t resemble cable news outlets. Subscribing to pseudo–liberal one–issue interest groups and an endless parade of ill–tempered protest marches. Surely the TV media cannot be a reflection of the populous?
Either way, where is the discussion of the case in which Alito ruled that a black woman could not take her discrimination claim to a jury? Is the abortion debate just a smokescreen for a pro corporate justice with regressive environmental policies? It is not my intent to pass judgment on Alito, rather to demonstrate the ludicrous frames used when debating Supreme Court nominees. There are many issues this country is facing deserving of as much attention as abortion and gay marriage. Here’s my pitch. If you watch the hearings closely we’ll see which senators are partisan zealots, and which are lowly hacks. Also which few senators still have the taut, mucousy outer membrane of a human soul.
How about this for the true liberal? Rather then focusing an agenda on pulling the troops out of Iraq immediately, which is more of a diplomatic and foreign policy than humanitarian goal at this point, since it seems at least plausible that an American pullout would result in civil war. (All lives have equal value, right?) Shouldn’t campus marches be focused on helping Sen. McCain pass his anti–torture amendment? Isn’t it much more plausible to force the House to say “no” to something as barbaric as torture than it is to resist one nominee based on one ruling?
Where the Democrats seem hopelessly divided on these publicized rifts within the party, the Republican leadership just hasn’t been itself lately. A great example of this was seen in Bill Frist’s hysterical reaction to Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s invoking of a rare parliamentary maneuver to force a closed–door senate session. Frank discussions of pre–war intelligence manipulation are understandably not Frist’s cup of tea.
Frist suggested that it was an affront unparalleled in the history of humankind. Never has a majority leader’s heart ever been so broken by the minority leader he loved and trusted. ‘Twas destined to be just another one of those fleeting Washington romances.
Oh the rage! In a Congress that used to settle its more personal disputes via duel, (see 1804 Burr def. Hamilton in an overtime shootout or 1856 Preston Burr def. Charles Sumner in a stunning dog cane melee) this is a bit of a let down both for me personally and C–Span2’s ratings. Regardless, Leahy’s dome looks spectacular in HD.
The bottom line is that rational argument has been subconsciously sacrificed in favor of hard–hitting TV talking points on both sides of the aisle. And during this week, media coverage gave politicians on both sides no reason not to. We should not let our dynamic political views be influenced by what party it might benefit. Why simplify into generic A vs. B arguments? This brand of politics is colored by controversial views with little substance behind any of them.
Because what we say will not be broken down into consumable chunks by the news media, we should not let our arguments be as 2–D as the ones media propagate. This is the lesson we should extract from the spectacle that was this political week.
Bassey Etim ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in journalism and political science.
