Trump Took on the International Elites at Davos. You Know They're Steaming
Appeals Court Puts the Kibosh on Insane Judge's Ruling That Hamstrung ICE Agents...
Trump Pulls Another Masterclass Negotiation on Greenland
We Now Know What Happened With That DHS Officer-Involved Shooting in CA
He Was Ordered to Kill Iranian Protesters – Now He Faces a Death...
The Left Is Baby Brain Damage
Democrats Will Impeach Trump If They Win in November
Trump Blasts Canadian PM Mark Carney's Lack of Gratitude for American Strength
Tucker Carlson's Latest Newsletter Argues That a Nuclear Iran Could Be 'a Good...
Justice Clarence Thomas' Response to Hawaii Gun-Control Law, Grounded in Racist Black Code...
Trump Jokes With Newsom During His World Economic Forum Speech: 'I Would Call...
The Left's Search for a New Cause
House Oversight Sends Contempt Resolution Against Clintons to Full House Over Epstein Prob...
Man Faces Federal Charges for Alleged Online Threats to Kill ICE Agents
The Republicans Are Launching an Investigation Into Ilhan Omar's Mysterious Net Worth Expl...
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