Ed Whelan, below, has already punctured the main argument of the New York Times in its editorial vilifying Samuel Alito today. It’s a tendentious mess, all right. I would just add that I could barely get past the first sentence, in which the editors say the Alito hearings “lacked drama, apart from his wife’s bizarrely over-covered crying jag.” This has got to be one of the most mean-spirited puddles of venom ever to have dripped from the acid pen of the Times.
Mrs. Alito was moved to tears during the hearings. Was it “over-covered”? Seems to me it’s pretty big news when senators make a woman weep to hear her husband abused as a bigot. Was there anything “bizarre” about the coverage? Yes, but not something the Times would every point out: the pattern of many outlets “reporting” that Sen. Lindsey Graham had “made Mrs. Alito cry,” as though it were not perfectly plain that she cried in anger, frustration, and anguish over the treatment Democrats had given her husband, for which Sen. Graham was upbraiding them.
And how about that use of the word “jag,” as in “crying jag”? I thought the Times was in favor of “sensitive” males, men who could get in touch with their emotions, their feminine side. Above all the Times is interested in judges–women when it can get them, but men will do–who will bring such “emotional sensitivity” to the bench. I guess this stern rebuke to the tender feelings of Mrs. Alito, whose only “fault” is that she loves her husband, means that the Times wants men to be more feminine and women to be more manly. Me, I like the sexes the way “nature and nature’s God” made them, created equal but not the same.