Why Palin's non-response on Sup Crt cases matters

[pmcalk]

She had no response for regulations that McCain supported.  She had no response for why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign affairs credentials.  She doesn't know the Bush doctrine.  She can't name a newspaper she reads.  She can't explain why the $700 million bailout is necessary.

Toss it all up to "gotcha" journalism.

But her poor answers to Couric's questions regarding the Supreme Court shows she doesn't really have a fundamental understanding of how our government works.

I didn't expect her to list of a litany of Supreme Court cases that she had memorized.  Biden didn't do that either.  But the point of the question was to give the candidates an opportunity to display their knowledge of some fundamental principals of our country, like Federalism, the Fourteenth Amendments, Checks & Balances, etc....  Palin failed to provide even a tiny clue that she understands these concepts.

In his response to Roe v. Wade, Biden discusses privacy, the balancing of state's interest vs. the right to privacy, and the 14th Amendment.

Palin, on the other hand, says she supports leaving the issue up to the state.  Nothing wrong with that response, though I disagree.  But then Couric asks her if she thinks there is an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution.  Palin response:

quote:Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

.

To say that you believe that the Constitution provides a right to privacy, but then to say the states should determine what form that takes shows you really don't understand what a constitutional right is.

As for other Supreme Court cases, Biden's answer once again shows his knowledge of federalism, the limits of federal jurisdiction, and the role of the Commerce Clause.  You can disagree with him, but you cannot deny that he has a grasp of these issues.

Palin's reply:

quote:Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ...

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of ... any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

To the extent that the response makes any sense at all, it certainly does nothing to show that she has an understanding of how are government works.  Again, she didn't have to list any case names.  But she could have at least given us a clue that she understands the issues involved.

[iplaw]

I bet that felt good...

I think you might need one of these:



followed by some of these:



after that rant.

And I must say, kudos on adopting the new mantra of abortion as a "privacy" issue.  Gotta keep that target moving...

[Hometown]

I struggle with being outright embarassed for Palin because she is so clearly in over her head.  Then I saw some clips of Palin in prior debates on the Rachel M. show that caught her being quite nasty.  I shifted from sympathy to anger.

Palin -- Miss Alaska.  So sad that presidential politics has come to this.

Honestly, Pmcalk, have you ever seen the Republicans run such a bad campaign?

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

I bet that felt good...

I think you might need one of these:



followed by some of these:



after that rant.

And I must say, kudos on adopting the new mantra of abortion as a "privacy" issue.  Gotta keep that target moving...

Actually, "privacy" is what Roe is all about and how Roe came about.

Just read Jeffrey Toobin's book called "The Nine."  A quick read about the Supreme Court.  He talks a lot about abortion and its heavy impact on the court.  I highly recommend the book.  Has some funny behind the scenes stuff in there, too.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

I bet that felt good...

I think you might need one of these:



followed by some of these:



after that rant.

And I must say, kudos on adopting the new mantra of abortion as a "privacy" issue.  Gotta keep that target moving...

Actually, "privacy" is what Roe is all about and how Roe came about.

Just read Jeffrey Toobin's book called "The Nine."  A quick read about the Supreme Court.  He talks a lot about abortion and its heavy impact on the court.  I highly recommend the book.  Has some funny behind the scenes stuff in there, too.

It amazes me sometimes that IP actually says he's a lawyer, yet he questions the cornerstone on the Roe v Wade decision....

I don't doubt that he's a lawyer; just as I don't doubt he's so blindly right leaning that would even say that it isn't paramount to a woman's right to privacy of her own body.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw
And I must say, kudos on adopting the new mantra of abortion as a "privacy" issue.  Gotta keep that target moving...

Wow.  I am kind of dumbstruck here.  

Um, have you ever read Roe v. Wade?

Did you take Constitutional law in law school, or did they not teach that at your school?

[Neptune]

Not to defend iplaw, I don't think he's a lawyer myself.  But, If I'm not mistaken, Privacy ended up being secondary to lack of definition on the rights of the "unborn", under the 14th.  Had the 14th specifically included the "unborn" as "citizens" entitled to the rights of "citizens", then the "unborn" would have had a specific "right to life".  That would have eliminated the Privacy argument, which the court also reaffirmed I believe.  

Really that's why it's ludicrous to even argue for overturning Roe v Wade.  The 14th Amendment has to be altered, or trashed, or something.  And the ramifications of adding "unborn" to the list are virtually limitless, and mind-boggling to consider.

[pmcalk]

You are correct, in some ways, Neptune--had the Court determined that a fetus was a human being, then the state's interest in preserving that life could have trumped the right to privacy (though not an absolute).  The court specifically refused to determine when life begins.  

However, it still goes back to privacy.  If not for the right to privacy, the states could have dictated any restrictions on abortion they wanted, regardless of when life might begin.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

Not to defend iplaw, I don't think he's a lawyer myself.  But, If I'm not mistaken, Privacy ended up being secondary to lack of definition on the rights of the "unborn", under the 14th.  Had the 14th specifically included the "unborn" as "citizens" entitled to the rights of "citizens", then the "unborn" would have had a specific "right to life".  That would have eliminated the Privacy argument, which the court also reaffirmed I believe.  

Really that's why it's ludicrous to even argue for overturning Roe v Wade.  The 14th Amendment has to be altered, or trashed, or something.  And the ramifications of adding "unborn" to the list are virtually limitless, and mind-boggling to consider.

MichaelC.  How did we get so lucky to have you return the day FOTD got the boot?  The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away I suppose.

[]

BTW, I'll show you my bar card if you're nice.

[iplaw]

I hate the word MAVERICK.