Christine O'Donnell - another Sarah Palin?

During the recent debate between senatorial candidates in Delaware, our new Republican idiot, Christine O'Donnell, displayed an appalling ignorance of Supreme Court cases. This is astonishing; you would think that she at least had done enough homework to answer a question that had a high likelihood of being asked, particularly since she has been so critical of so-called "activist judges" and has expressed unhappiness about the recent California Supreme Court decision on DADT.

I'll let the transcript speak for itself:
--------------------------------
Nancy 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, but I'll put it up on my website, I promise you.

Wolf Blitzer: We know that you disagree with Roe v Wade.

O'Donnell: Yeah, but she said a recent one.

Blitzer: That's relatively recent.

O'Donnell: She said "of late." But yeah. Well, Roe v Wade would not put the power - it's not recent, it's 30-something years old...

Blitzer: But since then, have there been any other Supreme Court decisions?

O'Donnell: Well, let me say about Roe v Wade - if that were overturned, would not make abortion illegal in the United States, it would put the power back to the states.

Blitzer: But besides that decision, anything else you disagree with?

O'Donnell: Oh, there are several when it comes to pornography, when it comes to court decisions - not to Supreme Court, but federal court decisions to give terrorists Mirandize rights. There are a lot of things I believe - this California decision to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I believe there are a lot of federal judges legislating from the bench.

Blitzer: That wasn't the Supreme Court. That was a lower...

O'Donnell: That was a federal judge. That's what I said. In California.
--------------------------------
While she promised to update us on this issue on her websites, thus far I have not been able to find anything, either here or here.
UPDATE: While Christine has not personally responded (as she promised), this post is, I guess, the closest we'll get. It is, of course, nothing but pure bafflegab from one of her minions, wherein she has apparently changed her mind, now saying that she is OK with "recent" Supreme Court decisions. She attributes this change of heart to the fact that Roberts and Alito are now Supremes, conveniently ignoring the fact that they joined the court in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Newsflash for Christine: This is 2010. Not only that, but since she acknowledged that Roe v Wade is "30-something years old," you would think that she could name at least one case she has a problem with during the intervening 25-"something" years!
UPDATE AGAIN: Bill Maher, on his show this week, mentioned this, and commented that it's easy to promise an update on the website, and then do some creative copy-paste from Wikipedia. How true. How sad.

It's also illuminating to read her political viewpoints, not to mention her personal ones! Let's see. Masturbation: bad. Witchcraft: good. Evolution: bad! There's lots more. The Huffington Post always has some interesting comments. Or just Google her (no thanks!).

So there you have it. Just like the time when Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin (Christine's, erm, mentor) to name a recent Supreme Court case (besides Roe v Wade), and was not able to. Oh dear. Of course, this was yet another reason for Christine to have done her homework - if sister Sarah was tripped up, she really should have anticipated this question!