Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell has posted to her website a response to a question about recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that she objects to, an answer she didn't give at a debate Wednesday.
"Oh, gosh. Give me a specific one, I'm sorry," O'Donnell said in the debate. "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 Web site, I promise you," she added.
And she did.
In a posting late Wednesday, she praises the newly shaped court of the last couple years that has added conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. "[T]here is no longer a laundry list of recent disappointing decisions that stray from America's founding principles," O'Donnell said in the statement.
She then mentions three cases: "Consequently there are no recent Supreme Court decisions with which I vigorously disagree, with the exception of Boumediene v. Bush in 2008, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006 and Kelo v. City of New London in 2005. The court's strong record in recent years proves the tremendous importance of appointing constitutionally based judges and Supreme Court Justices."
Boumediene v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld both dealt with treating and rights of Gitmo detainees. And Kelo v. City of New London dealt with imminent domain and the government being able to seize property.
O'Donnell was elevated to the national spotlight after upsetting longtime Delaware politician Rep. Mike Castle. The Tea Party favorite, even with high media attention, in part due to old footage of her as a political commentator, is trailing her opponent by double digits.
She is facing off against Democrat nominee Chris Coons in the race to fill Vice President Biden's old Senate seat.
The Democratic party however isn't taking the seat for granted as both President Obama and Vice President Biden are stumping for Coons in Delaware Friday.