No one ever pays attention to the Supreme Court. Actually I shouldn’t say that because tourists do. Particularly in the way that they stand directly in the middle of the sidewalk thereby prohibiting people from moving around their fanny-pack clad asses as they gawk at the building; but other than that, nope. Not really. That is until the Supreme Court hands down a decision that people are suddenly outraged by and they cannot fathom how the justices managed to interpret campaign finance law without asking the American people. I mean how dare they use their own opinions?!

At times I find the general ignorance – not necessarily in a bad way but in a “but they don’t make the laws, so why should I care?” way – about the court to be amusing. I smirk when I hear of people who pay no attention to why Presidential elections and Senate races are the two most influential things on the outcome of the highest court in the land. The President chooses a Supreme Court nominee, the Senate confirms said nominee, then that person gets to be on the bench until FOREVER and EVER and EVER.

The ambivalence towards what the nine justices do starting the first Monday in October is truly frightening. Not that I am up every night poring over recent decisions with a mug of chamomile tea by my side but I do make a point of…I don’t know…at least casually paying attention. For these are the people who are paid to interpret the Constitution and they get to do this FOR LIFE.

(I keep emphasizing the FOREVER thing because really, I mean really, being on the Supreme Court is like marriage with the whole ‘Til Death’ clause and if you decide to drop out early it can get kind of awkward and messy and then Orin Hatch wants to filibuster your ass because you might be a baby killer)

I’m telling you all of this to express the way my eyeballs shot out of my head during last night’s Delaware US Senate debate. Chris Coons and Christine “I’m not a witch” O’Donnell went head-to-head with Wolf Blitzer tossing them questions on the obvious. This being a United States Senate debate the issue of the Supreme Court naturally came up. Wolf asked both candidates if there are any recent Supreme Court decisions they disagreed witha and, I shit you not, both Coons and O’Donnell had this deer in the headlights look on their face.

It’s like walking into your Biology final, seeing ‘miosis and mitosis’ on the page and being all “Oh damn, I didn’t know this was going to be on the exam”. It’s Biology. What exactly were you expecting? These are two people who would like to be United States Senators and probably couldn’t pick Samuel Alito out of a line-up is but already have a couch picked out for their new office in the Dirksen Building.

Pro Tip: If you want to be a Senator, learn a little something about the Supreme Court.

The most recent case that O’Donnell could come up with was actually a decision by a Federal District Court so naturally her back-up was Roe v. Wade. I wonder how she feels about Miranda v. Arizona or even Plessy v. Ferguson while we’re at it. Her final response was “Can I get back to you on that one?” Then Wolf turned to Coons who mentioned the Citizens United case. And Wolf said, “Anything else?” And Coons said, “Nope” and Wolf said, “Alrighty then!”

And then I prayed for the state of Delaware because OMFG. Good luck!

It is 2010 and we have a bevy of information literally at your finger tips and I’m assuming that as a candidate for the United States Senate you also have staff with access to the Internet who could at least provide you with the URL of Wikipedia. I was a big fan of Oyez during the college years which includes oral arguments and a handy dandy calendar. And there’s always a little site called GOOGLE.

Oh and I don’t know what Wolf meant by ‘recent’ but since O’Donnell went with Roe v. Wade and Blitzer (kind of) accepted that as an answer; I think I’ll go with Bush v. Gore as a case I disagree with. Sometimes I dream of a world in which the outcome to that case were different. There are a lot of rainbows in that dream.

Other takes on the debate:

O’donnell’s Palin Moment

How Christine O’Donnell should have answered the Supreme Court question

Oh, you guys, I have a total thing for smart women. I mean women doing awesome things already makes me want to fist pump but smart women doing smart things thrills me to my core. And ideology has never mattered just actual brain usage and the ability to be objective when needed and to accept the subjectivity of others. That’s really all I ever request of most people; a willingness to listen and learn.

So Elena Kagan. I know as much about her as you do so I am not here to offer any formidable insight or tell you some hysterical story about that one time I met her. But I have found a growing interest within myself of Supreme Court nominees. Mostly the age thing. Being a SCOTUS judge is a life long FOREVER thing. Like forever and ever until you die and the nominated justices keep getting younger and younger and though I’m getting older I’m realizing that these people will be sitting on the bench, all up in my civil liberties for a very long time. And so passing interest has turned into a need to find and scour every bit of information about potential and actual nominees as I can because life…FOREVER…is just so long.

Quick Facts:

• Attended Princeton University
• Received her JD from Harvard University
• First female Dean of Harvard Law School
• Became the first female Solicitor General after being nominated by President Obama

Quick Links:

• Holding Court: What You Need To Know About Elena Kagan (via Jezebel)
• Liberals Raise Affirmative Action Question (via Congress.org)
• Elena Kagan Isn’t Experienced Enough for the Supreme Court? Really?! (via PunditMom)
• What Obama Sees in Kagan (via Washington Post)

Read a little. Let it marinate some. My opinion thus far is this: smart. And that’s as far as it goes because I don’t know enough to form a well-rounded and adequate opinion. All I know is that ‘for life’ is a long time and it makes me want to find out more.