Christine O'Donnell Stumped When Asked To Name A Recent Supreme Court Decision She Disagrees With (VIDEO)

In the Delaware Senate debate Wednesday night, Republican Christine O'Donnell tripped up and was unable to name a single recent Supreme Court decision she disagreed with, a moment similar to an infamous 2008 gaffe by Sarah Palin.

During the debate, O'Donnell said she opposed activist judges, citing the recent court decision ordering an immediate halt to military discharges because Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But when the moderators asked her to name a recent Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed, she was unable to name a single one:

NANCY KARIBJANIAN: What opinions, of late, that have come from our high court, do you most object to?

O'DONNELL: Oh, gosh. Um, give me a specific one. I'm sorry.

KARIBJANIAN: Actually, I can't, because I need you to tell me which ones you object to.

O'DONNELL: Um, I'm very sorry, right off the top of my head, I know that there are a lot, but I'll put it up on my website, I promise you.

WOLF BLITZER: We know that you disagree with Roe v. Wade.

O'DONNELL: Yeah, but she said a recent one.

BLITZER: That's relatively recent.

O'DONNELL: She said "of late." But yeah. Well, Roe v. Wade would not put the power -- It's not recent, it's 30-something years old --

BLITZER: But since then, have there been any other Supreme Court decisions?

O'DONNELL: Well, let me say about Roe v. Wade -- If that were overturned, would not make abortion illegal in the United States, it would put the power back to the states.

BLITZER: But besides that decision, anything else you disagree with?

O'DONNELL: Oh, there are several when it comes to pornography, when it comes to court decisions -- not to Supreme Court, but federal court decisions to give terrorists Mirandize rights. There are a lot of things I believe -- This California decision to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I believe there are a lot of federal judges legislating from the bench.

BLITZER: That wasn't the Supreme Court. That was a lower --

O'DONNELL: That was a federal judge. That's what I said. In California.

WATCH:

This incident was almost identical to what happened to Palin, O'Donnell's mentor, during the 2008 campaign in an interview with Katie Couric. The Republican vice-presidential candidate was unable to name a single Supreme Court case other than the conservative favorite Roe v. Wade.

Comments

[rob126]

02:48 AM on 10/29/2010

Headline: "Christine O'Donnell Stumped When Asked To Name A Recent Supreme Court Decision She Disagrees With."

Save the pixels. Just headline this "Christine O'Donnell Stumped."

[John7878]

06:11 AM on 10/20/2010

How about the Supreme Court decision that not only could Eminent Domain be used by cities & states to take your property, but it could be used by PRIVATE PARTIES!! (As long as the sale would benefit the community.)

Or how about the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that gave the cops permission to strip search EVERYONE they wanted to, even though they admitted that there were horrifying abuses of this policy!!

This is the same court that ruled that Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, with no need for a search warrant, & put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.

UNFRICKENBELIEVABLE!!!

[alterego55]

06:22 PM on 10/18/2010

She fakes orgasms when she's masturbating to fool God.

[SarahhJ]

09:59 AM on 10/20/2010

The point is not that she or any given private individual can't name any Supreme Court cases or the facts of those that she disagrees with. The point is that one of the fundamental beliefs of the Tea Party is the idea that judges (at all levels) legislate from the bench and don't follow the literal Constitution. Now, if I'm a candidate for the U.S. Senate and I share this core belief, is it not fair to expect that I would have more than passing familarity with those judges and cases that go to the heart of my political belief system? Add to that the notion that she should have clearly expected this softball question and should have knocked it out of the park. What does she do? She gets the deer in the headlights look, the same as Sarah Palin did with the Charlie Gibson and Katie Coric interviews. You can't fake stupid.
Sarah James
http://www.decordesigns.net

[tomteboda]

03:41 PM on 10/17/2010

Too bad she froze in the moment. I'm almost positive she would have otherwise named "Kelo Vs. New London", a tremendous blow to private property rights that allowed a local government to confiscate private property from one party and give it to another private party under the justification that the commercial enterprise proposed by the latter could present economic improvement to the city. While it is one thing to eminent domain for public use, the forcible wholesale transfer of private property by a thuggish government from one party to another is an entirely different matter on which I believe the SCotUS fell flat on their face.

O'Connor, Renquist, Scalia, and Thomas gave one of the most scathing dissents seen in modern times to the ruling. O'Connor wrote "To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. "

Near the conclusion of O'Connor's dissent, she writes "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.". This is again entirely accurate.

[cutesky]

10:54 PM on 10/17/2010

"Too bad she froze in the moment"? You must be kidding! She doesn't have a clue....you write like an intelligent person..do you honestly thik she would have named that case or any case for that matter? Please...She and her mentor Sarah Palin are clueless. Well, maybe she would have named Ali Vs.Joe Lewis.

[supertamsf]

01:40 PM on 10/17/2010

Palin: "I'll get back to ya"
O'Donnell: "I'll post it on my website"

Not even original.

[robbob35]

10:21 PM on 10/16/2010

Her answer was better than his. The headline, once again is somewhat misleading.
In the end she did mention several cases. As far as Coons, I knew he'd say
Citizens United before he even opened his mouth, and so did the moderators, and
that's why they asked the question in the first place. In his explanation he
shows himself to be just another liberal hack who doesn't understand the
Constitution. I'm much more offended that he wants to censor speech than I am
that O'Donnell didn't have a case she disagreed with at the tip of her tongue.
Big deal. (For the record, I'd have picked the Kelo decision.)

[Nikeflies]

12:56 PM on 10/17/2010

What Constitution are you reading that says a corporation is the same as an individual? Allowing corporations to donate as much as they want makes the voice of the actual citizen much smaller and allows money to influence policy way too much. America is based on allowing everyone to have an EQUAL voice and Citizens United does just the opposite by allowing corporations to drown out the voices of citizens... basically censoring the speech of real citizens. And how exactly was her answer anything close to acceptable for a person running for US Senate? A high school student would be required to have a better answer than her or would receive a poor grade. If she can't name a single recent Supreme Court case, and would have to wait for "her people" to tell her what to put up on her website, it just shows how little attention she pays to the policies affecting Americans, making me wonder why she is even running. I would think US Senators should have to run on more than "not being a witch."

[robbob35]

08:13 AM on 10/18/2010

Citizens United wasn't about corporate monetary donations to campaigns, it was about speech. Specifically, it was about the airing of a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. Elena Kagan, in arguing your side of the case, suggested that under her interpretation of the law, the state should be able to ban the movie, and if the same information were put into a book, the state could ban that too.

The First Amendment does not allow censorship of this kind, and it speaks volumes about the Democratic Party that they have taken such a f.a.s.c.i.s.t. position.

America is based on freedom. Citizens United playing a movie critical of Hillary is no more of a threat than Michael Moore playing a movie critical of George Bush. The true threat to liberty is censorship.

[dancucich]

09:20 PM on 10/17/2010

"I'm much more offended that he wants to censor speech than I am
that O'Donnell didn't have a case she disagreed with at the tip of her tongue.
Big deal."
---------------------------------
Exactly! This is much ado about nothing!"fanned and faved!

[cutesky]

08:34 PM on 10/16/2010

She can't name one she doesn't like. She can't name one she likes. She can't even name one at all. Where is Sarah Palin when she needs her.....oh I forgot, Sarah can't name one either. Great minds think alike.

[dancucich]

09:28 PM on 10/17/2010

"She can't name one she doesn't like"

===That's because she approves of all the *recent* decisions-which what she was asked about. Duh!==

. She can't name one she likes.

==She wasnt asked that.===

"She can't even name one at all."

====You dont know that either. (or much of anything else)===

[cutesky]

10:42 PM on 10/17/2010

How do you know she approves of all the recent decisions. Do you have a direct line to her so called brain or are you just guessing? Why didn't she just say she approves of all the recent decisions? Please.......Maybe she can fool you, but not most other people.

[Stella Gardner]

01:45 AM on 10/18/2010

Cutesky, you're hilarious, and I agree with you 100%.

[madgrrl]

08:24 PM on 10/16/2010

Um, gosh, can you explain what Supreme Court is? Give me a letter...

[dancucich]

09:29 PM on 10/17/2010

"Um, gosh, can you explain what Supreme Court is? Give me a letter.."

--------------------------
That would be over your head, madgrrl.

[Olethea]

06:55 PM on 10/16/2010

Wonder if she'll fix the Mirandize rights thing for the next nationally televised event.

Remember when palin asked Joe Biden if she could call him JOe, and it turned out it was becuase she couldn't stop calling him Joe O'BIden?

[Deltalk]

06:36 PM on 10/16/2010

Sarh Palin in Anaheim lives stream NOW:

http://www.palintv.com/2010/10/16/governor-palin-rally-anaheim-live-stream/

[MzDemocrat]

06:31 PM on 10/16/2010

This poor child is out of her league. They should have asked her something easy like: "How many fingers do you have?" Whoever put her up to running for political office should be ashamed.

[lynn1219]

07:32 PM on 10/16/2010

They're all out of their leagues. And, most of them are out of their minds, too.

[Stella Gardner]

01:46 AM on 10/18/2010

:) LOL.

[Harbinger08]

06:03 PM on 10/16/2010

Given that all of the big decisions by the SCOTUS in recently years have gone to the conservatives, she could have easily handled the question by saying, " I have to say that after Roe v. Wade the recent courts have made pretty good decisions." Easy, but she was too ignorant to know it. She's small "potatoe."

[lakevu]

05:45 PM on 10/16/2010

Wow, What an embarrassment!
Can't believe she's even being considered as a US Senate candidate.
Just goes to prove that there is some serious dumbing down of America.
I always cringe when a politician has to refer voters to their website when they can't answer a
question during a public debate.
But she has taken that to a new level.

[hammered at hotair]

08:24 PM on 10/16/2010

But hey, if they elected a one time jr. Senator who regularly voted "Present" - anyone can get elected.

Let this sink in deep - people won't be voting FOR O'Donnell, they will be voting AGAINST the Democrats.

She could have sold her soul to the Devil, but as long as she won't vote for Cap and Trade, card check or any other part of the Democrat Agenda - she is in.

[robbob35]

08:53 PM on 10/16/2010

Well said, my friend. Well said.

[Nikeflies]

01:13 PM on 10/17/2010

Wow- if Obama had been asked that same question, he would have had a well thought out answer, showing that his opinions are based on actual knowledge and information. He would not stumped by something a high school student could answer. You know when you're in a job interview, and they ask you tough questions? Most of the time its to see how quick you are on your feet and if you're able to come up with an intelligible answer. If you said "I'll get back to you later" you wouldn't be hired for the job. If you don't agree with Obama's policies thats one thing, but for that to make it ok to just elect anyone with a pretty face and no actual knowledge or opinions of current events, is just scary. What do you even do that would make Cap & Trade so damaging to your life? How has Health Care reform negatively changed your life? Do you have any idea what you're talking about, or do you just spit out what Fox News tells you to? Maybe you should just stick to getting hammered...

[shekel trader]

05:06 PM on 10/16/2010

Christine O'Donnell: The "Queen of Dumbed Down America".

-S/T

[robbob35]

08:58 PM on 10/16/2010

Christine O'Donnell: The "Queen of Dumbed Down America".
-------------------------
Um...no. That would be Nancy Pelosi, or maybe Barney Frank? (Ok, I admit it. That was a little mean. Go ahead and flag me.) :)-

[dancucich]

09:30 PM on 10/17/2010

"m...no. That would be Nancy Pelosi, or maybe Barney Frank? (Ok, I admit it. That was a little mean. Go ahead and flag me.) :)- "
-----------------------
Good one! wish I could fan you twice!( faved anyway)

[intragan]

04:46 PM on 10/16/2010

O'Donnell, after the debate is now only 10 points behind her opponent according to a poll recently conducted on 0ct 14? lol..oh thanks for putting up the answer to the Supreme Court question on your website..answering a question after a quiz will gain you zero points...didn't you learn that in college?
http://christine2010.com/press-releases/2010-10-14/o%E2%80%99donnell-recent-supreme-court-votes

[robbob35]

09:10 PM on 10/16/2010

Except what exactly is the point? Do you want to know what she thinks or do you want to know what she has memorized and at the tip of her tongue? Do you think being a senator means you have to make snap decisions with absolutely no time for reflection? Heaven help us all if that's true. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have a senator that admits she doesn't know something than someone who'll try to BS me into thinking he does when he doesn't. The fact is senators don't get to override Supreme Court decisions anyway so what's it even matter what any of them think? Why not ask a question about what standards they would use to decide if a person should be confirmed to sit on the Court? At least that would be an applicable question.

[intragan]

10:13 PM on 10/16/2010

Christine would not be able to answer that simple question you proposed either

[Nikeflies]

01:19 PM on 10/17/2010

Or even better- what standards they would use to decide if a person should be elected to the US Senate? How about picking up a newspaper sometime in the last 10 years? Knowing of a recent Supreme Court decision isn't just memorizing things, its showing that you pay attention to whats going on in American politics and have educated opinions on them. If she hasn't taken the time to stay informed over the last decade, what makes you think she's going to spend the time to get educated if she was in the Senate?