Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell may not be a witch, but she won’t be mistaken for a legal scholar either. In last night’s debate, when asked by moderator Nancy Karibjanian to name a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision with which she disagrees, O’Donnell came up empty. After Karibjanian noted the important responsibility that senators have to vote on appointments to the Supreme Court, this exchange ensued:
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. I’ll put it up on my website, I promise you.
Maybe this Mama Grizzly needs to crawl back to the den and curl up with some slip opinions?
How Checkbox’s ‘Legal Front Door’ Can Transform Your Workflow
Leveraging agentic AI to triage, prioritize, and automate the law department inbox.
But wait! We offer a defense of O’Donnell, who partially redeemed her initial flub, plus video — after the jump.
Here’s the video clip:
AI Is Reshaping Legal Practice—But Tools Aren’t The Real Differentiator.
Explore the mindset, cultural shifts, and training strategies that define the AI‑savvy lawyer, revealing why human judgment, standardized competence, and integrated learning—not technology alone—will shape the future of the profession.
In defense of O’Donnell, note how after she drew a blank on the “name an opinion” question, she proceeded to offer intelligent commentary on Roe v. Wade. She pointed out an important distinction that even many lawyers miss: if Roe were to be overruled, abortion wouldn’t become illegal overnight; rather, states would be able to decide the issue for themselves. Some people might not find such an outcome to be cataclysmic.
After discussing Roe, O’Donnell identified several lower-court decisions she finds problematic, in areas such as obscenity and the war on terror. She also mentioned the recent ruling striking down the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, indicating that she does keep abreast of legal developments in the federal district and circuit courts. She concluded by articulating her opposition to judges legislating from the bench.
O’Donnell may not be a witch — but she may understand the proper role of a judge better than many who wear the black robes.
Christine O’Donnell can’t name Supreme Court case [Politico]
Christine O’Donnell: SNL Spoof Of ‘I’m Not A Witch’ Ad ‘Really Funny’ [Huffington Post / AP]