Commentator, legal-eagle, super-genius, Canadian...just some of the words one could use to describe Dahlia Lithwick. She covers the Supreme Court and other legal matters for slate.com and the NPR program Day to Day, among other things.
She recently wrote in an exchange at the "DoubleX" forum on slate.com (where questions about "what women really think about news, politics and culture" are answered--thank goodness) about Christine O'Donnell, the woman who won the Republican nomination for Senate from Delaware. She writes that she has "been fascinated by Christine O'Donnell's constitutional worldview. ... O'Donnell explained that 'when I go to Washington, DC, the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not its constitutional.'"
I don't know anything about O'Donnell. She could be the next Henry Clay or the next John Keryy. She could be nuttier than a squirrell's turd. I don't know. But I like where she's coming from, as far as her approach to legislation.
But what I think matters not. What matters, apparently, is what women really think about news, politics and culture. So, Ms. Lithwick, what did you think about Ms. O'Donnell?
"How weird is that, I thought. Isn't is 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?" (italics in original).
I would like to take a quick moment and reiterate that this woman, though born in Canada, got her JD from Stanford University and writes on the Supreme Court and other legal matters and, by god, helps let us know what women really think about news, politics and culture.
Well, Dahlia, you might want to look into another line of work and at least a partial refund from Stanford. Judicial review, the concept about which she seemingly knows nothing, is not provided for in the constitution. And legislators keeping in mind that the constitution (which can, in fact be read and understood even by those who haven't studied at places like Stanford) placed certain limits on what each of the branches of government can do is, to me anyway, refreshing.