Justus For All

I’m in no way defending the democrats (or republicans for that matter) bloviating during the hearings…but to be accurate, I believe Senator Graham was speaking when Alito’s wife started to cry. So, i think she is crying in response to the nice things Graham was saying in his defense. I have my own concerns about Alito and they mostly fall in line with yours (power of the executive), however I could care less if Alito’s wife is crying. Don’t come to the hearings if you can’t handle the questions, no matter what the content. She isn’t news…she’s entertainment for the masses and fodder for punditry.

First, my headline was a bit ironic. Yes, the crying certainly did happen during Graham’s question, in specific when he affirmed that he believed Alito wasn’t a bigot, not because of Alito’s own testimony but because of the testimony of others who knew him best.

I have seen the double meme in your comment that 1)it was a Republican who made her cry and 2) that it isn’t ‘news’ floating around a lot. Frankly, both those points are innaccurate.

I think it patently obvious why she became emotional during the hearings. Anyone who had been teased or had a difficult time in other ways is probably familiar with being able to stoically bear the abuse until someone offers you comfort and then all the pain flows out. Saying that the person offering comfort, rather that those doing the abuse, caused the tears is just stupid. The Democrats line of questioning, which I think is offensive whether or not it made her cry, was the cause of these tears.

As to whether something is ‘news’ or not, a good rule of thumb is probably anything that a lot of people loudly claim isn’t news is, in fact, news. Often it is very important ‘news.’ Alito’s fate depends upon two things (and pretty much has since his nomination) if Democrats will muster the political will to filibuster this nomination and if Republicans will muster the political will to change the Senate rules in response. Public perception of Alito, and perception of the two parties plays a huge role in those calculations. Alito’s wifes tears (and the relevant question for the masses as you call them of what caused her to cry) matter a lot in that respect. If the Democrats opposition and tactics is seen as illigitimate, then a filibuster will not be supported. If they are seen as legitimate and Alito is perceived as ‘out of the mainstream’ than Democrats would gain a huge amount of support in blocking the nomination.

That is news.

I agree that it was the harshness of the hearings that made her cry, I was just pointing out the she started crying while Graham was talking. However, doesn’t it worry you the least bit that her tears are what is influencing much public opinion and the more and more stories about those tears are influencing people to support or not support this nominee instead of his actual philosophy or qualifications or opinions? That is why it shouldn’t be news. That is why it isn’t news and instead its entertainment. It gets ratings and it allows the pundits to throw stones at each other and continue to misinform American in both directions. I’m not saying that it isn’t that way with many MANY news stories, but it doesn’t mean that it IS news and it doesnt mean I have to like it! Bottom line, she should honestly be ashamed of herself that she has become a story in something she should be wholly uninvolved in just by crying. I’m sorry, I can’t muster one bit of sympathy for her. I’m not angry at her (its really the press I’m angry at) but I’m certainly not sympathetic.

If find the entire CAP line of questioning, given all the other evidence we have to be illigitimate. Democrats have spent a signifigant amount of time on that non-issue. Certainly we had news stories before the hearings that they chose this to be their primary line of attack, which seems to be the case.

While it might be nice if public perception of a Supreme Court nominee’s suitability for the Court was based upon their actual positions and opinions, that hasn’t been the case for a long time. And news organizations are not the ones primarily at fault for that.

I don’t think you can honestly tell the CAP questioning story without Martha-Ann Bomgardner’s reaction. It is an important aspect of the story. I might agree with you if I felt that this was a ’staged’ display, but that frankly isn’t credible.

Additionally, as I stated the crux here isn’t supporting or not supporting the nominee. The place where supporting matters, is supporting the Democrats opposition to the nominee, which includes the tactics being used, both in this line of questioning and the potential for a filibuster.

It is telling that Democrats felt their best shot was the CAP story. Either they don’t have a serious objection, or they don’t trust that their real objections would be shared by the general public.

The CAP story is legitimate; however he certainly isnt the first nominee with ties to unsavory groups and personally I can accept his story about his membership regarding the ROTC, its a done issue for me. However, saying the story isn’t legitimate is wrong. Membership in a group that opposed minority and female applicants for a SCOTUS nominee is most certainly legitimate and an explanation was warranted. Again, what do her tears have to do with this? Absolutely nothing. Explain to me why I should care if she’s crying — in a purely SCOTUS nominee/qualifications light? I just don’t see how you can say its an important part of the story. Man has membership in group that fights against female and minority applicants. Man is nominated to SCOTUS. Must explain membership. Democrats attack nominees beliefs regarding minorities and female equality. Nominee’s wife cries.
Sorry Dave, its just not germane to the arguement/issue.