Well, We Have a Candidate to Replace Graham Platner in Maine
James Talarico Hires Activist Who Handed Out Sex Toys on Campus to Craft...
A Minnesota Somali Politician Had the Audacity to Call for More Childcare Funding
Abdul El-Sayed Was Just Busted Lying About His Views on Defunding the Police
This Massachusetts Town Ended Its Shotspotter Program to 'Protect Migrants,' Now a Man...
The Washington Post Embarrasses Itself With Pearl-Clutching Story About Arizona's Food Sta...
Vice President Vance Visited Milwaukee Today, and Here's What He Had to Say
Europe Doesn't Believe It Has a Future. That's What Happens When You Stop...
The US Navy Is Now on Patrol in the Middle East
Here's the Truth About AI Data Centers—and Why the Wealthiest County in America...
President Trump Just Went Scorched Earth Against Communism on the World Stage
Defending America's Founding Principles in a Divided Age
NJ Grocery Store Owner Gets 27 Months for $2.2 Million SNAP Fraud Scheme
United States Begins More Serious Strikes Against Iran
'Informed American Patriotism': Texas Schools Bring Traditional Civics Back to the Classro...
OPINION

The Candidates' High Court Priority — and the Constitution's

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
The Candidates' High Court Priority — and the Constitution's

RIGHT OFF THE bat, moderator Chris Wallace asked Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump: "What's your view on how the Constitution should be interpreted?"

Right off the bat, Clinton and Trump gave the wrong answers.

Advertisement

Clinton announced that the Supreme Court needs to "stand on the side of the American people," and then rattled off a checklist of political causes and positions she expects the court to endorse: "women's rights . . . rights of the LGBT community. . . no to Citizens United. . . not reverse marriage equality. . . not reverse Roe v. Wade." There was nothing in her answer about how the Constitution should be interpreted, because constitutional interpretation is of no importance to her campaign. What matters to Clinton is that the court deliver the results favored by her most ardent supporters ("I will defend Planned Parenthood. I will defend Roe v. Wade").

Trump was no better.

Characteristically, his first words were about not what he thinks of the Supreme Court, but what the Supreme Court thinks of him. "Recently, Justice Ginsburg made some very inappropriate statements toward me and toward. . . many millions of people that I represent, and she was forced to apologize." Then he, too, moved to stroke his base: "The justices that I'm going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent. They will be protecting the Second Amendment."

Advertisement

Once it was considered inappropriate for presidential candidates to talk about subjecting Supreme Court nominees to litmus tests on controversies that might come before them. Nominees at least paid lip service to the ideal of choosing justices on the basis of jurisprudence, legal philosophy, and fidelity to the Constitution.

But now, every presidential election is described, with panicky hyperventilation, as "the most important in our lifetime," because the winner will choose jurists who may shift the court's ideological balance.

So Trump's priority will be to name justices who think well of him. Clinton's — to choose justices likely to vote for the Democratic agenda. As for the Constitution, its priority is chiseled in marble above the entrance to the Supreme Court: "Equal Justice Under Law."

If only Clinton or Trump cared about that.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement