« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

O’Donnell, Coons and the Courts

By: Curt Levey (Diary)  |  October 14th, 2010 at 09:26 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

When it comes to the most important qualities we look for in a senator—good ideas, leadership ability, intelligence, articulateness, strong principles, a compelling vision for the future, and the like—Christine O’Donnell stood out as the better choice for Delaware voters during last night’s debate.  But the MSM seems to be focusing, instead, on a somewhat less important quality where O’Donnell’s opponent, Chris Coons, might have the edge after being a lawyer for eighteen years.  I’m talking, of course, about the ability to name Supreme Court decisions off the top of your head. 

O’Donnell struggled when asked which Supreme Court decisions she dislikes, but Coons didn’t do any better. When asked the question, Coons could only come up with the same case, Citizens United, that a questioner had asked him about a few minutes earlier (Wolf Blitzer failed to push the issue with Coons, unlike with O’Donnell).  Moreover, Coons’s answer consisted of nothing more than the usual Democratic talking point—corporations shouldn’t have free speech rights—that even my dog knows by heart by now.

While we learned nothing from Coons’s answer to that question, another of his remarks about the courts was more telling:

[M]aking sure that we’ve got on the record Miss O’Donnell’s views on things like prayer, abortion, evolution, is important. These aren’t just random statements on some late-night TV show. These are relevant to her service in the United States Senate, what sort of judges she would confirm.

What’s interesting here is the way Coons projects his liberal, litmus test-based approach to the judicial confirmation process on O’Donnell.  Liberal senators make no bones about demanding that judicial nominees share their views on abortion, public prayer, and a host of other social issues. But that’s not what conservatives like O’Donnell are looking for in judges.  Conservative senators focus on whether judicial nominees are willing to interpret the Constitution as umpires rather than as policymakers and philosopher kings, making a senator’s views on particular social issues irrelevant to the confirmation process.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

    Was his asking Blitzer which version of the Constitution O’Donnell supported..the one we started with or the one we have now (that allows abortions).

    I was frozen in my tracks when Coons said he supported the 1975 version of the Constitution.

    Funny-I thought we had ratified only the one, but apparently I missed the 1975 Constitutional Congress and subsequent ratification by the Several States..

  • morstar150

    Whenever a conservative candidate is asked about a Supreme Court Case that should have been overturned the answer is easy. But first understand the reason for the question. In the debate between O’Donnell and Coons the moderator was trying to bait her with the question. The most obvious answer to that question to a person who is pro-life is Roe v. Wade. That is the wrong answer and it puts the Republican right in the catagory that the media has designated for them.

    Instead, the answer is Kelo v. City of New London. This is an eminent domain case that allowed the government to take private land and transfer it to a corporate developer because the court says bringing in tax revenue and jobs is considered a proper use of the property.

    Any eminent domain case grows out of the 5th Amendment which states: no person… shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    The key to the 5th Amendment is that is states no property may be taken for PUBLIC USE, without compensation. In Kelo, the Court redefind “public use” to mean “public purpose” and in doing so approved a plan that would turn the taken land over to private developers on the promise that redevelopment would bring in more tax revenue and more jobs.

    The land was taken, the company abandoned the property, there were no new tax revenues, and no new jobs, just empty lots that used to be people’s homes.

    On so many levels that decision was wrong.

    • Kyle-MI

      I have no disagreement that Kelo should be cited by conservatives as a bad Supreme Court decision, but I don’t think we should leave out Roe either.

      Conservatives need to remember that they need to give more than just a one word answer to this question. We need to explain why these are bad decisions not just rattle off a bunch of names.

      It is not just that Roe allows the taking of innocent life. The reasoning behind the Roe decision undermined the Constitution and therefore undermines all the protections of our rights. Even if you support abortion as a protected choice by women, you should be disturbed by Roe.

      • chihank

        won’t be a big deal to swing voters. Polls show America is becoming more pro-life, or at least less pro-abortion. The GOP’s pro-life platform is unlikely to change in the future.

        When the media asked Christine O’Donnell about a Supreme Court case that she disagreed with, the media wanted her to say things like school prayer and Creationism.

    • FJG

      However, this decision can be used to stop the mosque from being built on Ground Zero.

      Donald Trump offered to purchase the property (for 25% higher than it’s value) and turn it into something that would generate profit/taxes for the state and the federal government. The mosque?s builders rejected the offer, but by making the offer, Trump has opened the door to using this decision to stop the mosque.

      Personally, I detest the concept of eminent domain. But what is the comment Winston Churchill made in a speech after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941? Oh yes, ?If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.? Well, if this decision prevents the mosque from being built on Ground Zero, then I?m ok with conservatives refraining from attacking the decision in debates during this election cycle.

  • morstar150

    the abandoning of our core principals that this country was founded upon: that a person’s home is his or her castle, that we hold property ownership as the “American Dream,” that the right of the individual trumps the right of the government when it comes to one’s property. Except that Kelo changes all that.

    Roe v. Wade is important and is an example of Judicial Legislation, aside from being anti human, but my comment to exclude that case was mentioned so that O’Donell would not feed into the media hypocracy of setting her up to look like she’s a one horse rider.

    Kelo goes directly to the fact that our government, including our courts, have stolen our power as citizens. A reading of the 10th Amendment would fit right there!

  • skorrent1

    By mentioning McCain/ Feingold as a bad decision and then praising SCOTUS for Citizens United that at least partially weakened it. But, under the “shoulddasaid” list, Kelo would have allowed her to zing Coons as the type of “city manager” who wants to take people’s property and give it to others.