Opinion SHOHAM GEVA EDITOR IN CHIEF CLAIRE BRYAN AND REGAN DETWILER EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS LAURA SCHINAGLE MANAGING EDITOR 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com 4A — Thursday, February 18, 2016 Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan, Jeremy Kaplan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala, Kit Maher, Madeline Nowicki, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke, Kevin Sweitzer, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung, Stephanie Trierweiler, Hunter Zhao EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS E-mail Dan at Dancp@umich.EDu DAN PARK FROM THE DAILY Prompt appointment needed Furthermore, cases concerning divisive issues such as abortion, affirmative action, contraception, public unions and immigration are all on the docket for this Supreme Court term. By leaving Scalia’s seat vacant, Republicans risk a 4-4 tie on many of these controversial votes. This is a problem because tie votes uphold the decision of the lower court in that court’s respective jurisdiction, which does not establish national precedent. If these cases are heard by an eight-member Court in the term that begins in October, a tie vote would essentially mean the hearings were a waste of the Court’s time. It is therefore essential that the Senate fulfills its constitutional obligation by at least considering an Obama nominee. Republicans argue that a nominee should not be considered during the election cycle. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the rest of the GOP caucus maintain that the people should have a say in choosing a nominee through their vote in November. While Republicans assert that nominating a replacement during an election season is misguided, history disagrees. Throughout history, there have been eight Supreme Court nominations during election season, and six have been confirmed. On average, it takes 25 days to vote on a Supreme Court justice once nominated. Constitutional duties, along with government precedent, should not be suddenly suspended because a presidential election is ongoing. Obstructing the nomination process not only spurs inflamed partisan divides, but it could also disjoint the normal decision-making process of the Court. The potential for numerous 4-4 split votes on many critical issues will mean the decisions of the lower courts will be upheld within their respective jurisdictions, but the case does not establish precedent for later Supreme Court cases. The American people need and deserve a full Supreme Court so the nation can have closure on issues of such critical importance. The Republican-controlled Senate must fulfill its obligation to the citizens of the United States and work with the president to confirm a new nominee. The Supreme Court was designed, through lifetime appointments, to stay the test of time and be greater than the political squabbling of our country. The late Justice Scalia himself best exemplified this ideal when he requested that President Obama fill an empty seat with Elena Kagan, now the most liberal member of the Supreme Court. Even though she contradicts Scalia ideologically, he chose her because he believed the Court needed a brilliant, qualified mind arguing the most important issues of our day, regardless of belief. It is time for Senate Republicans to move past partisanship and do what they were elected to do. Nominating a Supreme Court justice is one of the Senate’s most crucial constitutional obligations and should not be a political fight. Legislators cannot simply abandon their constitutional duties and disrespect two centuries of precedent — their jobs are too important and the stakes are too high. Incestuous, integral and in loving memory T oday is my great uncle Gail’s memorial service. I called my dad last Sat- urday evening to invite him and my stepmom to dinner for my birthday when he told me the news. My dad, just wak- ing up from a nap, sounded groggy. There was an edge of sadness in his voice. “Aunt Mar- ian texted me,” he interjected. “Uncle Gail passed away yesterday.” “Wow,” I responded, recalling the last time I had seen my grand- ma’s brother-in-law. It was my dad and stepmom’s wedding, held on my grandma’s 75th birthday, in their backyard. My grandma was more than happy to share her birthday with my dad and his new wife. After a brief pause, I continued, “I knew he wasn’t doing well, but I didn’t know it was that bad. Do you know when memorial service is yet?” There was no question in my mind concerning my schedule: I was going home to see my family. *** I grew up in a small town — a vil- lage — that, generally, I did not leave for the first 18 years of my life. As a senior in high school, I only applied to two colleges, both less than an hour drive from home. (Thankfully, I was accepted at the University of Michigan before having to apply to Michigan State.) Leaving was excit- ing, yet it simultaneously scared me; I needed the stimulating expe- rience of a completely different place with the security blanket of somewhere that was close to home. Now, after almost five years in college, I envision all of the things I can accomplish, and I don’t want to look back. “If I don’t leave now, I don’t think I ever will,” I told one of my cowork- ers during a lull in customer traffic. She rolled her eyes, understand- ably, at my constant use of the word village to describe my home- town during our conversation. I kept rambling. “I don’t know, though. It’s really hard. I love Michigan and I have a really big family. All of my siblings are still in Parma. All of them have kids. I don’t want to miss anything. But I feel like I need to see more of the world and find the way I can best help others. It’s weird to think about. I feel so conflicted sometimes.” Struggling with my past, pres- ent and future, I went to visit my personal essay professor, John Rubadeau, during his office hours. In our first conversation, I told him about my family: My brother is married to, and has a son with, one of my best friends from high school. He’s buying the house my three siblings and I grew up in from our dad. My youngest brother and his pregnant girlfriend live with them. My sister lived in the house with her husband and (now four) kids for nearly three years before moving 10 minutes outside the village. And that’s just the surface. Deliberating for a moment while chewing his gum, John responded: “Sounds incestuous.” “Hmm,” I contemplated, sorting through the facts about my family in my head. “That’s a good word for it.” But, after leaving his office that day, something kept bothering me. The connotation of “incestuous” seemed so negative. I Googled the definition: 1. Involving or guilty of incest OK, my family is close, but not that close. 2. (of human relations gener- ally) excessively close or resistant to outside influence, esp. as to prevent proper functioning Bingo. Incestuous implies some- thing improper. *** On Sunday evening, the day after my dad told me about Gail’s death, the local newspaper released his obituary, which I’ve paraphrased below. I read it online and was amazed by the things I didn’t know about my great uncle: Lloyd “Gail” Reardon was born in 1931 on County Farm Road on the outskirts of the village of Parma. He loved sports and went to the same high school as me and nearly all of my dad’s family; then, it was Parma High School. He met my great aunt Marian, my grandma’s sister, when she stopped into Gail’s Friendly Gas Station, now my uncle’s shop, Don Marsh Service. They had six kids — four sons and two daughters. In 1959, the year before my father’s birth, Gail became the youngest mayor of Parma. He owned and operated several successful businesses: Gail’s Friendly Service gas station and repairs, Parma Party Store, Gail’s Pizza, Gail’s Car Wash, Reardon Realty and probably a few I’m miss- ing here. He was known to many as “Mr. Parma.” His favorite mantra was “Keep on keeping on.” He always put others first. Suddenly, a different, more fit- ting term popped into my head. Integral. Google made this clear for me with a definition: 1. (adj) necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental. Gail, and most of the other resi- dents in our small town, played an integral role in the history of Parma, shaping the place it is today. He planted a seed that extended well beyond his six children and numer- ous grandchildren. Uncle Gail did so much for my family, his extended family and so many other people. His influence is everywhere — my young- est brother’s middle name is Lloyd. In the same way, Parma plays an integral role in my history, shap- ing who I am today. And, no matter where I end up after graduation, I’ll never let that go. In loving memory of Lloyd “Gail” Reardon July 25, 1931 — Feb. 12, 2016 — Aarica Marsh can be reached at aaricama@umich.edu. AARICA MARSH A feminist undecided for 2016 I n politics, labels are paramount. I’m frequently reminded of this fact during conversations with one of my older siblings. Our discussions — while usually respectful — often devolve into a clash of policy perspectives between a republican and the family’s designated “bleeding-heart liberal.” More often than not, the phrase is intended as a light-hearted jab, but there’s certainly some truth to the title. My opinions regularly lean a little to the left. However, I can’t deny that the political identifiers my sibling and I attribute to one another, from time to time, have led us to misjudge each other’s beliefs and stances on issues. Republican. Democrat. Conservative. Lib- eral. Independent. With these designations — self-proclaimed or not — come a variety of assumptions. In a highly polarized political sphere, these titles are often — and sometimes poorly — used as societal determinants of which candidate is supposedly best suited to occupy an office, where a candidate should supposedly stand on an issue, how voters supposedly should vote and how they actually will vote. Momen- tarily casting partisanship aside, the use of labels such as “feminist” and “millennial” have recently created tension among female voters within the Democratic Party. Addressing millennial women, renowned feminist figureheads Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright recently voiced their con- cerns about the vast number of young female voters supporting Sen. Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. Steinem, viewing female support for Sand- ers as perhaps an attempt by young women to avoid accusations of a bias toward their own gender, or as an attempt to seem more united or more likable to their male counterparts, stated, “When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie.” During a Clinton rally in New Hampshire, Albright stressed the need for the younger gen- eration’s support to continue progress toward gender equality by saying, “We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done … It’s not done. There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” Unsurprisingly, Albright and Steinem’s commentary wasn’t well-received by young female voters. Millennial women viewed the remarks as condescending. Young women interpreted the comments as yet another ren- dition of a prevalent narrative told by older generations that deems the millennial gener- ation self-absorbed, lazy, unaware and short- sighted. The statements could be viewed as contradictory to feminist values. Feminism — at its core — stresses the importance of a woman’s ability to make her own decisions, and a woman should be able to do so without her individual agency being questioned. Additionally, whether a woman decides to vote for the only female candidate in the party certainly doesn’t provide a measure of her effectiveness as a feminist. The move- ment is meant to be intersectional in its prac- tice. Therefore, it’s crucial to recognize that gender is merely one of numerous factors and experiences capable of influencing an indi- vidual’s vote. However, the reactions to Steinem’s and Albright’s remarks do highlight prevalent issues within both the political campaign process and the feminist sphere. It’s understandable why generations of older women and older female political fig- ures are seeking solidarity among female voters. Hillary Clinton faces a unique and undoubtedly difficult situation as a woman in politics and, more importantly, as a woman whose entrance into the presidency would make history. Clinton, as a result of sexism, faces myriad obstacles that her male competitors don’t. Gender itself is an issue that arose in her first presidential bid and remains one she must carefully navigate in her present campaign. Her status as a woman, if ignored, will likely result in the public viewing her as inauthen- tic and unlikeable. If she tries to acknowledge her status as a woman, Clinton runs the risk of not being taken as seriously as her counter- parts or of taking advantage of her gender to appeal to the female demographic. Even recently, issues arose around the topic of shouting during campaign speech- es. While theatrics and shouting certainly haven’t been in short supply for either party during the campaign process, Clinton’s use of tactics that her male competitors regularly utilize is frequently interpreted by viewers as overly aggressive and off-putting. The commentary from Albright and Steinem illustrates the existence of a profes- sional, ideological and experience-related MELISSA SCHOLKE gap between generations of women. Women from the older genera- tion may have more experience with these double standards, and research proves Steinem’s point that women professionally “lose power as they age.” Younger women do need to take these factors into account, and acknowledge that they perhaps are privileged in ways their predecessors weren’t. Older generations may be eager to increase concerningly low lev- els of female representation in government and to further along initiatives to end inequality in a variety of realms. However, they must recognize many members of the younger generation share their aims. The older generation must also be willing to accept that the younger has its own set of experi- ence with inequality and its own set of challenges. For older feminists, perhaps the only viable next step guaranteed to break down barriers is to elect a woman into the White House. Yet younger voters may see alternatives to continue achiev- ing progress. A number of younger women, in fact, claim the reason they support Sanders is because they believe his platform would be more effective for ensuring equal- ity and economic stability. Feminism is not one-size-fits-all. Rather than further exacerbate a generational gap, perhaps the best option for female Democrats is to shift away from labels, expectations and distinctions between older and younger. Instead, voters need to direct their focus to the candidate’s stances on concrete policies. Clinton inarguably has a vast amount of beneficial executive and foreign policy experience working as the secretary of state, and has placed a large emphasis on the importance of paid family leave. Additionally, she’s argued against the Hyde Amend- ment. Conversely, Sander’s policies concerning “Medicare for all” and free college tuition are appealing to a generation of women plagued by debt, disillusioned by various aspects of higher education and anxious about achieving financial stability. Over the years, I grew accus- tomed to hearing the idea that votes shouldn’t be swayed by political labels or allegiances to a particular party. Voters must now also be cau- tious of allegiances toward a par- ticular gender or a particular age demographic. During this nomina- tion period, voters shouldn’t place emphasis upon the gender or the superficial likability of the candi- date, but rather on the candidates’ platforms and on their ability to improve conditions for all individu- als and make substantial progress. In the case of this particular liberal and feminist, I’m still undecided. — Melissa Scholke can be reached at melikaye@umich.edu. T he death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has caused the already-volatile American political environment to reach a new height. Republicans are now rallying behind the idea that the next president should be the one to nominate a new justice. However, President Obama has the constitutional obligation and right to nominate someone, just as the Republican-controlled Senate has the constitutional obligation to consider that nominee. Inaction on this issue due to overt partisan politics is not the correct solution to this situation, and not a precedent our government should establish.