Super Bowl Update

Martha note: Denise Zito is a regular contributor to WMRA's Civic Soapbox -- in fact one of her essays is set to air this Friday. She sent me the following reaction to the Arizona shootings because, she said, she "needed to vent." And I hope it will stimulate some constructive venting in you as well. 

As surely as the sun rises in the east, the public, repetitive analysis begins as to why someone would pull a gun and shoot into a crowd of people. This time, the shooting takes place at a shopping center and a Congresswoman in Tucson and fourteen others are gunned down.

Columbine. Oklahoma City. Blacksburg, Virginia and so many others.

Some argue that the political climate is so caustic that the mentally vulnerable are driven to act out the metaphorical language that ‘targets’ politicians for removal from office.

Others claim that these are simply individual acts, and the sole responsibility of the shooter.

Those who attended religious services this weekend heard some version of these opinions in the petitions served up to God.

This time, I’m observing an interesting twist. As an example of how ‘unhinged’ Jared Loughner supposedly is, a reporter listed the books that Loughner posted on his Facebook page: Brave New World, Animal Farm, Alice in Wonderland and others that nearly every high school student in the country is asked to read. How does this list classify someone as ‘unhinged’?

Loughner also posted a disturbing video of a hooded figure in the desert, burning an American flag. Yes, I find this disturbing, and I would ask if anyone has been to a movie theater lately? I find many movie previews to be as horrifying as Loughner’s video posting. Nearly half of all movie previews these days involve guns, car chases and intense terror.

I’m not writing to advocate movie censorship, only pointing out that a ready supply of guns and the persistent glorification of violence in our society are moving us toward an expected outcome. But nothing about this incident should surprise us. Our political climate characterizes one side as ‘the enemy’ when in fact we are Americans with different opinions. One party allows the demonizing of our President and our elected officials. One party uses imagery of weapons and war in describing political debate.

As expected, we’ll all line up to reflect on the tragedy of Congresswoman Giffords and the others as either the random act of a mentally ill person, or the playing out of the worst scenario of our culture of violence.

The most discouraging part of this for me, is that I’ve stopped expecting anything in our society to change, no matter how horrific the acts of violence. I’ve concluded that only the small, personal acts of kindness are in my control. This is a sad commentary in a Democracy.

                   --Denise Zito lives in Free Union.

It feels like a new day now that a third woman has been nominated to the Supreme Court. And then it pains me to think that I need to be shocked, or honored, or excited to feel this way. It’s 2010 and here I sit, feeling all blessed and grateful that we might actually have three woman appointed to the Court.

When you only have nine options, it’s difficult to balance all the forces clamoring for equality: gender, race, ethnicity, religion, education and let’s get right to it: political viewpoint. Though Harvard and Yale seem to be the only law schools able to produce a Supreme Court Justice these days, and though it seems a bit odd that with the departure of Justice Stevens, we could have an exclusively Jewish and Catholic Court, the compelling force behind the selection remains the balance of liberal versus conservative bent of the proposed Justice.

In truth, Elena Kagan, the current Solicitor General, is probably an early replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is known to be in declining health. How cynical of me to think this way. But now, President Obama can have the notoriety of nominating two consecutive women, and for a time we’ll probably have three women on the Supreme Court.

And as a reason to protest her appointment, the other side will find plenty to argue. They’ll claim that Ms. Kagan doesn’t have enough judicial experience. No matter that until fairly recent times, Supreme Court justices came from many areas of public service, not just from those with previous experience as a judge in a lower court; the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, being the most recent example.

Over the next weeks leading up to the vote on Ms. Kagan’s nomination, we’re likely to hear lots of opinions on what makes an ideal Supreme Court Justice. What I would put forth is this: we need justices who understand the law, have inquiring minds to look at complex issues from many aspects and who can render opinions that hold to our constitution. And I would add, looking at issues from many aspects is enhanced when the makeup of the Court reflects our diverse democracy.

When I first heard the news of Kagan’s nomination, I tried to picture what it would be like to have four or five women in that role. Would Supreme Court decisions be different? We’re learning that women and minority senators and representatives don’t vote in lock-step on any issue. But slowly, slowly our nation has evolved and been nudged along by having a truly more representative democracy in all branches of government. Having more women and minorities at the decision making table has brought points of view that had not previously been given voice.

The years since the nomination of Thurgood Marshall, the first African American Supreme, and then Sandra Day O’Conner, the first woman, to the present are like a time-lapse photograph turning our highest court into a multi-dimensional decision making body, more closely resembling our struggling, raucous democracy.

So close your eyes for a moment and picture a Supreme Court not dominated by aged white guys, but having women, men, African Americans, now a Latina and maybe some day an Asian member.

I like it.

                                          -- Denise Zito lives in Free Union