Too much Palinblogging for ye? Apparently not. In September, the month of Palin, this blog's traffic increased by 80 percent. We were well into record territory even before this week's national media appearances. Love her or hate her, people love to read and argue over Sarah Palin. So, thank you all for your readership.
I've just seen Palin's answers to Couric about Roe v. Wade. You can see the whole four-minute video here -- if you only want to hear Palin, skip past Biden, to the two-minute mark. Here's the money stuff:
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 further embraced by America.
Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?
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.
Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?
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.
Can't think of a single other Supreme Court decision she disagrees with. Not Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, nor Lawrence v. Texas -- two rulings that are extremely important to religious and social conservatives. They're not even on Palin's radar.
What's more, Palin doesn't seem to understand that Roe turns on whether or not there's a constitutional right to privacy -- which she believes there is. To be fair, she could believe that right exists, which I'm fairly sure most mainstream conservative legal scholars do, but that it doesn't cover abortion. But she didn't make that distinction, and Couric didn't push her.
I'm the sort of conservative who votes on the Right primarily because of the Court. This is, therefore, disheartening. The only heartening thing, in fact, is that the next two vacancies on the Court are likely to be liberal seats. So a President Obama, who would have carte blanche in naming justices with a Democratic Senate, would likely not get to alter the balance of the Court. Stay healthy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts!
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
We should remind ourselves that very few voters do any careful analysis at all. Most voters will choose based on habit, gut reaction, or reasons either shockingly vapid("He's sooo inspiring." or "She's just like ME!"), or worse ("He's.... well, different." or "She talks funny.")
I would pay $1,000 for Gwen Ifill's first question to Palin to be: "Recent polls show a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?"
Neil
If Sarah Palin needs political correctness and protection in interviews and dialogues ... if she suffers "stage" fright (or any type of [public] speaking fright) -- what will she do on the international stage and with other international leaders, speakers, deciders, et cetera?
No doubt the Palin critics, being wise and noble jurisprudes, already know this, but there is kind of a tension created by the 14th Amendment. You see, there is clearly a right to privacy embedded in and emanating from the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself. That's because the Constitution was written to set forth the limited powers of the federal government. So of course there's a privacy right. Anything the Constitution doesn't expressly allow the federali's to do, is left to the states or the people. No where in the Constitution does it say the feds can prohibit you from deciding what language your kids will learn, and whether they will go to Catholic schools or be homeschooled. In fact, notwithstanding the opinions of the Nine Geezers, the Constitution doesn't prevent you from doing things like growing vegetables in your back yard (or doobage for that matter) or raising chickens. And for you perverts, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to come look in your window to make sure you're not doing anything freaky or naughty.
Now you (other than the Palin critics who, obviously already know) might wonder what is the greatest threat to privacy posed the Constitution. Anyone? Anyone? The commerce clause? Anyone? When coupled with the “necessary and proper” clause as interpreted by the Nine Geezers? Wait a minute? Isn't that that the same clause that Uncle Joe was so proud of manipulating? Hmmmm?
Anywho, the tension arises when you try to apply that privacy right against the states pursuant to the 14th Amendment. Conservatives are all over the map as to how appropriate that may or may not be. For ye commentators who think the right to privacy (exercised against the states) only involves your ability to do freaky and perverse things with your who-has and wah-hoos or snuff undesirables, let me draw your attention to Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Some Nuns. I suspect most conservatives would support the outcomes in those cases. Some conservatives, unfortunately, would even support Eisenstadt. The tension is created because the Federal Constitution is intended to create limited government, but states, being closer to the people, have traditional police powers which means they can inhibit some you perverts from doing perverted stuff and from killing your neighbors, even if you do it in private, or in a “doctor’s” office. After all, you can always move to California if you must be weird and lawless. But the 14th Amendment is broad, arguably broad enough to limit the police power of the states to that of the federalis. Which is pretty nonsensical since the states of necessity must act in various areas in which the feds are prevented (by the terms of the Constitution, properly understood) from acting. Of course today the federalis appear to be at greater liberty to invade your privacy than the states (thank you Senator Biden). But we’ll save that for another lesson, kiddies.
It's a mess. Palin didn't create it. But she seems to understand the tension. Better than the Palin critics.
Word to your respective mothers.
Loudon is a Fool - your analysis reminds me of the ongoing debate between Randy Barnett & Kurt Lash regarding the meaning of the Ninth Amendment & "unenumerated rights". Had Palin mentioned any of those names or phrases, I'd be less inclined to criticize her choice of words.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.