That Annoying Gavin Newsom Is Measuring The Drapes
UAW Expands Labor Strike, Though One Automaker Isn't Being Targeted as Heavily
Photos: Texas National Guards Defends Southern Border From Illegal Immigrants
The Evil Party Gets Stupider
Biden’s Hostage Deal: An Affront To Our Efforts To Hold Iran Accountable
Will Americans Elect A Convicted Felon?
Cowards and Communists
Latest Poll Is the Last Straw for Bumbling Biden
What if We Excused Other Crimes the Way We Do Election Fraud?
The Women of Iran Pave the Way to Freedom
North Carolina Governor Fails to Tell the Truth About Election Reform
Fauci Had 'I Am the Science,' Garland Now Dangerously Has 'I am the...
When Democrats Are Fed Up With Joe Biden, You Know It’s Bad
The Irony of Democrat Bob Menendez Indictment On Bribery Charges
Democrats Demand Joe Biden to be Given Credit For a ‘Successful’ Economy

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

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.


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."


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


Trending on Townhall Videos