What’s That Now?
And now we interrupt this waste of your lunch hour with a brief interlude of substance.
I loved this bit from Dahlia Lithwick, Slate’s esteemed legal correspondent (hat tip RP):
I have been fascinated by Christine O’Donnell’s constitutional worldview since her debate with her opponent Chris Coons last week. O’Donnell explained that “when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.” How weird is that, I thought. Isn’t it a court’s job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn’t that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution?
This is awesome. It’s not just that Lithwick dismisses a perfectly sensible and mainstream argument. It’s not just that she is ignorant of the contents of the actual Constitution (it does not provide for the Supreme Court serving as the either sole or final arbiter of what is constitutional). It’s not that she seems to have forgotten Marbury v. Madison. It’s not that she cannot grasp the idea that some legislator might not want to vote for unconstitutional legislation. No, what really makes this great is the absolute bunkered pomposity behind her instinctual certainty that anyone who disagrees with her bouillabaisse of ignorance and ideology must be “weird.”
