It Is Right and Proper to Laugh at the Suffering of Journalists
For Epstein Victims and Members of Congress, It’s Time to Put Up or...
Axios Is Having a Tough Go of Things This Week, and Media Are...
The Brilliant 'Reasoning' of the Left
The Decline of the Washington Post
Ingrates R’ Us
Jeffries and Schumer Denounce Trump's 'Racist' Video — but Who Are They to...
NYC Needs School Choice—Not ‘Green Schools’
Housing Affordability Is About Politics, Not Economics
Is It Cool to Be Unpatriotic? Perhaps — but It’s Also Ungrateful
A Chance Meeting With Richard Pryor — and Its Lasting Impact
What’s Next After That $2 million Detransitioner Lawsuit Win?
Focus Iran’s Future on Democracy, Not Dynasty
California Campaign Adviser Sentenced to 48 Months in PRC Agent Case
19 New York City Residents Reportedly Freeze to Death After Mamdani Changes Homeless...
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.

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