Dahlia Lithwick, Slate’s legal writer, not only thinks that legislators should ignore the question of whether their bills are constitutional, she thinks that to do otherwise is simply bizarre:
I have been fascinated by Christine O’Donnell’s constitutional worldview since her debate with her opponent Chris Coons last week. O’Donnell explained that “when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.” How weird is that, I thought. Isn’t it 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?
Lithwick is also apparently ignorant of basic constitutional case law, the very subject she presumes to write about. The concept of judicial review does not appear explicitly in the Constitution; it was introduced by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison.
I’ll give Lithwick this though; she has summarized the left’s take on the Constitution perfectly. To wit: flagrantly disregard it, and see if anyone ever reels you in.
(Via the Corner.)
UPDATE: David Bernstein gives her both barrels.
Internet Scofflaw 