With the passage of health care reform last month, political pundits have been hungry for more news to feed the gaping maw of speculation. Right on cue, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced he was planning to retire from the nation’s highest court.Before his letter hit the president’s desk, the media machine began chattering loudly. “Who is he going to appoint?”  “Just how liberal a judge is he going appoint?”  Republicans immediately began publicly gearing up for a vicious fight about confirming the new judge — who, by the way, hadn’t even been announced.Who, by the way, still hasn’t been announced as of the time of this writing.You wouldn’t know it from the coverage. Right-wing pundits already started decrying the radical, activist, baby-killing lunatic       President Obama was sure to appoint. CNN started advertising the impending “Drama of the confirmation battle,” as if they were advertising for a boxing match.To be fair to the beleaguered media elites, it seems like this is how it’s always been.Supreme Court confirmation hearings are classic political slugfests. To a certain extent, it really is a dramatic mix — seminal decisions on important issues are made by the Court, and there’s that alluring mix of bravado, strategy and blind luck that makes the fight seem almost like a sporting event.After all, it’s only so often a president gets the chance to do this. And, given their age, there’s always a real chance a justice will die during the tenure of one lucky party.But the process for determining who is appointed to the court was designed — with good reason — to be a solemn, slow-paced one. And the justices have lifetime appointments for another good reason — to be insulated from the winds of popular opinion.So it’s perhaps understandable and even justifiable that the confirmation process is bitterly fought. But we, as a country, are starting to go overboard.Yes, the stakes are high in a confirmation — but media probably shouldn’t be hyping the confirmation weeks before those hearings actually happen.  Yes, there is room for debate on the classic battle between a judiciary that strictly interprets the constitution and one that takes a more involved approach — but Republicans should probably wait until Obama announces someone before they start assaulting him or her. Remember the vast majority of decisions the Supreme Court hears are about matters that, while not the sexy, controversial stuff that earns headlines, are important and wide-reaching. These issues are a maze of legal lingo and require a seasoned, brilliant jurist.This is the real problem with the current system: Amid all the discussion of activism and personal political stances, the qualifications of jurists are often reserved to the end of every discussion. Republicans and Democrats should certainly have to fight about who gets to make it to the Court — and discussion on how the prospective justice interprets his or her role should be vigorously discussed. But contemporary debate about confirmation hearings is increasingly dominated by discussions of the activism question to the detriment of everything else.Take, for example, Obama’s confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor. Discussion of her nomination was dedicated largely to controversial quotes and accusations of radical revisionism — but how many of us can name her qualifications? Sadly, this is just another example of a flawed media and political culture. It’s probably overly idealistic to hope the boring but important stuff, such as where a justice went to school and how fine a legal mind he or she possesses, gets brought up.Like so many other important issues, the real healthy meat of the debate is lean, bland and unsatisfying — so our politicians and pressmen feed us the fatty but deliciously dramatic parts instead.Matthew Albright is a 21-year-old mass communication junior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_malbright.—-Contact Matthew Albright at [email protected]