In a recent New York Times op-ed, Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin has suggested that the Justice Department ought to force Supreme Court justices to step aside when facing conflicts of interest. The same day, on a CNN show hosted by Erin Burnett, the same idea was aired with an alarming lack of critical questioning.
The issue with Burnett’s lack of pushback is that it endorses a principle that could harm the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court. Throughout the interview, Raskin suggested that personal decisions, like those made by Justice Alito’s wife regarding flag-flying, should incriminate Justice Alito himself; a proposition that is frankly absurd. Burnett, however, offered no reasonable counter.
It seems that the media and Raskin specifically are misunderstanding the difference between an explanation and blame. Justice Alito was not blaming his wife, simply explaining that she is a separate individual with her own perspectives and choices. Even though flags flown were perhaps not in best taste, they are not a political endorsement.
What is worrying is Burnett seemingly taking sides with Raskin, instead of providing balanced and challenging journalism. Her agreement signaled endorsement of the notion that the Supreme Court is under assault. The reality, however, is that the Supreme Court is under attack mostly from Democrats who are fearful of potential rulings that don’t match their political priorities.
What this boils down to is a conspiracy theory. Democrats allege that because Mrs. Alito responded to neighborhood criticism with flag-flying, Alito and the Supreme Court are somehow biased towards January 6 rioters. Burnett seems to believe the solution is for Alito to recuse himself. This, however, only encourages more irrational accusations from Raskin and his supporters.
Alito argued that any reasonable person not motivated by politics would realize that he has no need to recuse himself. Raskin, in response, commented on the language using the term ‘reasonable person.’ The reality, however, is that no reasonable person would associate flags flown by someone’s wife with deep-seated bias.
There is an evident media narrative contradiction here. On one hand, January 6 rioters are characterized as insurrectionists intent on destroying democracy. Yet simultaneously, these same rioters are considered powerful enough to hijack and claim Revolution-era symbols.
In a nutshell, the media ought to provide fair and balanced reporting, question narratives, and stand up against political manipulations. The Supreme Court is a vital institution that warrants respect and protection. Astonishingly, it’s figures like Raskin and media allies like Burnett who are inadvertently undermining this trust. It’s essential to realize that political bias should not guide, or cloud, our interpretation of justice. This saga serves as a reminder why we urgently need to uphold the impartiality, and integrity of the Supreme Court. A biased Court serves no one. A fair-minded one serves us all.
