O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[Political Junky]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[Steerpike]

Christine O'Donnell's church and state gaffe makes voters laugh | World news | The Guardian

It was great seeing the audience laugh at her ignorance.

Of course, they're just as ignorant it seems. Which is unfortunate, because they're law students.

 

[geauxtohell]

Where is "separation of church and state" quoted in the Constitution?

Yeah, If you think anyone with half a brain is going to buy that "the phrase separation of church and state literally in the constitution" bullshit, you must think was are as dumb as Limbaugh apparently does.

It's well understood what the establishment clause does and where it is found.

O'Donnell was even confused after Coons gave her the ver batum quote.

This might be a compelling argument if the women didn't have to "phone a friend" over what the 14th and 16th amendment were prior to this.

You guy's attempts to paint her as some sort of esoteric legal scholar are hilarious.

 

[Ravi]

This episode shows ignorance on the part of O'Donnell as well as the audience laughing at her.

Technically, she is correct. There is no Separation of Church and State in the Constitution, so when you ask where in the Constitution it is located, the answer is that it isn't. There's a fair bit of academic debate on this point in legal journals. But as someone said above, I doubt O'Donnell was making such a fine point. She just comes off as looking bad.

But the audience whose knee-jerk reaction is to laugh, and the others who for politically reason pounce on this without thinking about it, look just as ignorant. Because even though it looks like O'Donnell just stumbled into this, she's right. It's not in there, but it is language used in Supreme Court opinions and is now part of our jurisprudence. Even though the Constitution itself doesn't include a separation of church and State, the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment have been interpreted in that manner for some time.

It's a metaphor. A metaphor than any rational person would understand.

 

[Liability]

I didn't see the debate. I was hoping that she was making a rhetorical point about what the document literally says. I suspect that she had been prepped about "the separation of church and state" NOT being in the Constitution. That is of course, true.

But she then pressed Coons on the wrong point.

Yes. It was ignorant of her.

It doesn't seem much to matter. I still doubt she has any chance of winning.

But if she does win, she needs to get out and read a bit.

 

[geauxtohell]

Never fear, Teabaggers!

Rush Limbaugh is here to carry O'Donnell's water for her...

RealClearPolitics - Video - Limbaugh: O'Donnell Correct About First Amendment

Have no fear.... MSNBC is there to carry Coon's water for him

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state - Politics - Decision 2010 - msnbc.com

When you opponent comes across as stupid as O'Donnell, you don't need anyone to carry your water.

You shouldn't excoriate MSNBC too much. Their article gives O'Donnell the benefit of the doubt that she actually knew what in the fuck she was talking about (which is what you are claiming too) and brings up an even more alarming point: does Delaware want to elect a crazy theocrat?

 

[The Infidel]

Yeah, If you think anyone with half a brain is going to buy that "the phrase separation of church and state literally in the constitution" bullshit, you must think was are as dumb as Limbaugh apparently does.

It's well understood what the establishment clause does and where it is found.

O'Donnell was even confused after Coons gave her the ver batum quote.

This might be a compelling argument if the women didn't have to "phone a friend" over what the 14th and 16th amendment were prior to this.

You guy's attempts to paint her as some sort of esoteric legal scholar are hilarious.

Why do you idiots keep mentioning Limbaugh?

I have a mind of my own!!!! Plus, I was in a meeting all day, so I missed his show...... He must've schooled you dumbasses on it.

Dont be mad.... your all entitled to be wrong.

 

[Steerpike]

It's a metaphor. A metaphor than any rational person would understand.

No. It's actually a fairly long-standing debate in legal jurisprudence - whether the Supreme Court was right to go with an interpretation Jefferson would have wanted (and which I agree with), or whether that interpretation over-extends the language of the amendment.

I realize it is easy to type 'lol' at things and pretend they're more simplistic than they are, so I'll assume that's what you're doing here.

As for O'Donnell, I highly doubt she knows of or was referencing the legal history (and debate) here. I think she'd heard it said somewhere before and just threw it out there without knowing anything about it, and consequently looked foolish.

 

[The T]

Yeah, If you think anyone with half a brain is going to buy that "the phrase separation of church and state literally in the constitution" bullshit, you must think was are as dumb as Limbaugh apparently does.

It's well understood what the establishment clause does and where it is found.

O'Donnell was even confused after Coons gave her the ver batum quote.

This might be a compelling argument if the women didn't have to "phone a friend" over what the 14th and 16th amendment were prior to this.

You guy's attempts to paint her as some sort of esoteric legal scholar are hilarious.

Why do you idiots keep mentioning Limbaugh?

I have a mind of my own!!!! Plus, I was in a meeting all day, so I missed his show...... He must've schooled you dumbasses on it.

Dont be mad.... your all entitled to be wrong.

They cannot get el-Rushbo out of their brains. Rush vexxes their dreams Which means Rush is effective...and they have no other course.

 

[The Infidel]

Yeppper

 

[The T]

I didn't see the debate. I was hoping that she was making a rhetorical point about what the document literally says. I suspect that she had been prepped about "the separation of church and state" NOT being in the Constitution. That is of course, true.

But she then pressed Coons on the wrong point.

Yes. It was ignorant of her.

It doesn't seem much to matter. I still doubt she has any chance of winning.

But if she does win, she needs to get out and read a bit.

She was. Just wasn't articulate about it. But on the right track nonetheless.

 

[geauxtohell]

]
Why do you idiots keep mentioning Limbaugh?

Because he's the first idiot to try this bullshit angle that this was some sort of esoteric legal debate as opposed to O'Donnell being patently ignorant of the document she claims to love so much.

Lucky for you numb-nuts, he did your scutwork for you and now you guy have your own internet debate points!

I have a mind of my own!!!! Plus, I was in a meeting all day, so I missed his show...... He must've schooled you dumbasses on it.

Limbaugh never schools anyone on anything. He controls the microphone.

 

[Steerpike]

She was. Just wasn't articulate about it. But on the right track nonetheless.

I think being on the right track would have included, after correctly pointing out that the separation isn't explicitly provided for in the Constitution, also pointing out that it exists as long-standing law in the country. And then, if she disagree with that interpretation, she could have given reasons for her disagreement.

 

[Steerpike]

Because he's the first idiot to try this bullshit angle that this was some sort of esoteric legal debate as opposed to O'Donnell being patently ignorant of the document she claims to love so much.

I don't listen to Rush, so I don't know what he said.

But my first thought when I saw the video was "She's right, but I don't think she knows what she's talking about, I think she's repeating something she heard." And I still think that's the case.

She's technically right but she fails to appreciate the case law around the First Amendment.

 

[The T]

]
Why do you idiots keep mentioning Limbaugh?

Because he's the first idiot to try this bullshit angle that this was some sort of esoteric legal debate as opposed to O'Donnell being patently ignorant of the document she claims to love so much.

Lucky for you numb-nuts, he did your scutwork for you and now you guy have your own internet debate points!

I have a mind of my own!!!! Plus, I was in a meeting all day, so I missed his show...... He must've schooled you dumbasses on it.

Limbaugh never schools anyone on anything. He controls the microphone.

^Look Mabel?! Another arrogant Statist Jerk...He must've voted for that Obammy fella...

 

[geauxtohell]

Because he's the first idiot to try this bullshit angle that this was some sort of esoteric legal debate as opposed to O'Donnell being patently ignorant of the document she claims to love so much.

I don't listen to Rush, so I don't know what he said.

But my first thought when I saw the video was "She's right, but I don't think she knows what she's talking about, I think she's repeating something she heard." And I still think that's the case.

She's technically right but she fails to appreciate the case law around the First Amendment.

Or the 14th or 16th amendment..................

 

[geauxtohell]

^Look Mabel?! Another arrogant Statist Jerk...He must've voted for that Obammy fella...

I love how pointing out stupidity equates to "arrogance".

It's the mating call of the perpetually ignorant.

 

[Steerpike]

Or the 14th or 16th amendment..................

Well yeah. The 14th and incorporation is another layer altogether. At the country's founding the State government weren't bound by the 1st Amendment. But I'm not sure the separation argument changes much in view of it; it just means that whatever conclusion you arrive at with respect that issue applies equally to the state and local governments.

 

[strollingbones]

Witches are unpredictable.

excuse the fuck outta me...you aint pushing her off on us

 

[The T]

Or the 14th or 16th amendment..................

Well yeah. The 14th and incorporation is another layer altogether. At the country's founding the State government weren't bound by the 1st Amendment. But I'm not sure the separation argument changes much in view of it; it just means that whatever conclusion you arrive at with respect that issue applies equally to the state and local governments.

Fact is? There is ZERO 'Separation'...if that were the case? Congress would get RID of it's Chaplin.

/Argument.