The Palin/Couric SCOTUS question

[madbrian]

Posted: 10/1/08 at 7:20pm

In all its glory.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Courc_vs_Palin_round_17.html?showall

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/1/08 at 7:26pm

You know, the cadences are so similar to Miss Teen South Carolina's infamous map answer that it's almost eerie. As a reminder, Miss Teen South Carolina was asked why a fifth of Americans (no doubt many who think Sarah Palin is "just like" them) can not find the United States on a world map:

“I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh, I believe that our, I, education like such as, uh, South Africa, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uhhh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us.”

Same difference, only not as funny when one of the two wants to be Vice President.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 10/1/08 at 7:40pm

why did I read that as "scrotum?"

Posted: 10/1/08 at 7:58pm

Compare and contrast!

Couric Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

Katie Couric: Why do you think Roe v. Wade was a good decision?

Joe Biden: Because it's as close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours. What does it say? It says in the first three months that decision should be left to the woman. And the second three months, where Roe v. Wade says, well then the state, the government has a role, along with the women's health, they have a right to have some impact on that. And the third three months they say the weight of the government's input is on the fetus being carried.

And so that's sort of reflected as close as anybody is ever going to get in this heterogeneous, this multicultural society of religious people as to some sort of, not consensus, but as close it gets.

I think the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment … offers a right to privacy. Now that's one of the big debates that I have with my conservative scholar friends, that they say, you know, unless a right is enumerated - unless it's actually, unless [it] uses the word "privacy" in the Constitution - then no such "constitutional right" exists. Well, I think people have an inherent right.

Remember when people were mad Obama chose Biden?

Posted: 10/1/08 at 7:59pm

OH- And this is ONE THREAD I REALLY HOPE BICKLE COMMENTS ON. Please. C'mon boy.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 10/1/08 at 9:57pm

Did you all see McCain's defense of this babbling idiot in Iowa? How small is the bubble in which he lives?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 11:03am

And as was pointed out last night, the Exxon oil spill? Where did that happen, Governor? Was there not a ruling on that little crime against nature?

[madbrian]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 11:17am

I really hate to be fair about things, but I think on this one Palin simply blanked. She is familiar with the recent Exxon ruling, and spoke about it publicly (link below) only three months ago. Not sure why she couldn't come up with this when pressed by Couric.

Don't get me wrong, I still think she's a moron and a danger if elected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H-26MOxH34

Posted: 10/2/08 at 11:25am

She couldn't name a NEWSPAPER! Why should you be surprised she couldn't name a Supreme Court Decision?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 12:38pm

Today on The View, Elizabeth posited that Palin did the right thing by not "endorsing" any newspaper or magazine by saying their names out loud.

Which makes me wonder, if John McCain makes earmark-seekers famous and tells us their names, is he endorsing them?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 2:04pm

At this point, I'm actually surprised Hasselbeck wasn't chosen for the VP candidate.

[StockardFan]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 2:21pm

Perhaps if Palin runs in 4 years, she will choose Elisabeth as her running mate.

[madbrian]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 5:35pm

Lost amidst all the attention to Palin's fumbling over naming another case is that she contradicted McCain's stance on privacy. Couric had referred to the Griswold case, in which the SCOTUS decided that there is an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Row v Wade is based upon Griswold, and Couric mentioned that. Palin agreed with her that there is an inherent right to privacy. McCain disagrees with this. He has spoken out against Griswold, and that would probably need to be thrown out as well to overturn Roe v Wade.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 7:24pm

I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas.

Not that there aren't so many things wrong with her response, but that's not what federalists believed. Then again, if she can't even name a current paper she reads, I suspect she hasn't read the Federalist Papers either.