• Gay BlogAds


  • Gay News Watch


  • Chris Tweets



  • « McCain speaks to gay America | Main | Live-blogging the V.P. debate »

    October 01, 2008

    Sarah Palin on Roe vs. Wade

    Posted by: Chris

    CBS News has finally released the videoclip of Sarah Palin stumbling through her view of how the Supreme Court has handled constitutional questions throughout American history.


    Watch CBS Videos Online

    The questions begin easily enough, focusing on Roe vs. Wade, although Palin remarkably says she agrees there is an unenumerated "right of privacy" in the Constitution -- a position directly at odds with basic conservative legal theory challenging not only Roe but also the sodomy decision (Lawrence vs. Texas) and going back four decades to Griswold vs. Connecticut, which threw out state prohibitions against contraception sales.

    Palin's support for the right to privacy would be newsworthy except for the fact that it's clear from the context of the interview that she has no clue what that right actually means or how it plays out in abortion or any other controversial legal issue.

    Then, of course, there is her stammer/filibuster over what opinions besides Roe she disagrees with. Considering conservative opposition to much of the Supreme Court's modern constitutional jurisprudence, her non-answer not only underlines her lack of preparedness, but can't make conservatives too happy.

    I do not count myself among those who believe Palin is stupid or even poorly educated, but she is very clearly way out of her league, and not nearly prepared to be one (septuagenarian) heartbeat away from the presidency.

    |

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e20105351b8391970c

    Comments

    1. Strict Scrutiny on Oct 2, 2008 12:02:27 AM:

      I do not count myself among those who believe Palin is stupid or even poorly educated, but she is very clearly way out of her league, and not nearly prepared to be one (septuagenarian) heartbeat away from the presidency.

      You know, Chris, I was saying the same thing until just very recently. I said she was out of her league, but added that there was no evidence that she was stupid or poorly educated. I was actually defending her.

      But now I'm not so sure. She's been the V.P. candidate now for over a month and hasn't bothered to learn a few Supreme Court cases? Hasn't learned her talking points? In her last interview, Katie Couric asked her a question and she rambled on and on and didn't answer the question -- it was the sentence to nowhere. Just utter gibberish. And then yesterday (or today), she couldn't name a newspaper that she read? I could go on, but we all get the picture. This woman was an abysmal choice for V.P.

      Maybe she's not stupid, but at the very least she's extremely incurious and intellectually lazy. Sound like anyone else we all know?

    1. torrentprime on Oct 2, 2008 1:06:46 AM:

      Embracing the unemurated right to privacy? The strict constructionists are going to s^&$ themselves (pardon the ascii).

      Except, as you say, she clearly had no idea that it was a problem. It's sad, too; it's one of those things where in her head (and in the head of any normal person), the running logic would be, "Privacy? ...sounds safe... I believe in privacy...sounds American... say yes!" All without knowing that the right has waged on a war on the court case that discovered it. Free Republic has been some gooood reading today; I hope it gets even better now.

    1. torrentprime on Oct 2, 2008 2:38:56 AM:

      (oops. Pardonx2 on the horrific spelling in the first line)

    1. Rael on Oct 2, 2008 2:42:33 PM:

      Surely I must be mistaken. I was taught to be polite, forgiving even. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. There must be something/much I don't fully understand. Someone else must be at fault.

      or...

      I trust/believe my own eyes and ears. I make my own decisions about what I see and hear. I take personal responsibility for my belief that she cannot must not be POTUS.

    1. Hawyer on Oct 3, 2008 12:12:18 AM:

      You know -- whether or not Palin is stupid, incurious, or just plain ignorant is really beside the point:

      John McCain - to date - has had one opportunity to exercise an executive decision - and that was choosing Sarah Palin as his veep - an incomprehensibly irresponsible decision for the second highest office in the land.

      We - as a people - have spent the better part of two years (!) vetting the candidates for president - and to pull Palin out of thin air with her nonexistent resume is an affront to the people and the process. Fuck you John McCain. Here's hoping you retreat to the footnotes of history as you so richly deserve.

    1. Crysta on Oct 25, 2008 12:13:29 AM:

      I do not understand how Sarah Palin claims to be pro-life. People who are pro-life do not believe in abortion no matter what circumstance. I believe that Roe vs. Wade is an extremely flawed decision that should definitely be overturned. If Palin announces to America that she is "pro-life" she needs to step up and express it, not leave it up to the states. It is important to have people who are persistent with this belief to enforce it, rather than brush it off.


      Abortion is morally wrong no matter what situation. The right to live is vital to America, not abortion. Abortion is taking an innocent life away without any consideration of the unborn child’s natural rights whatsoever. There is a quote from rapper Flipsyde in his single “Happy Birthday”, “I've got a million excuses to why you died. Bet the people got their own reasons for homicide.” If you take time to analyze this amazing quote, you will most likely find it to be completely true. There is no reason to virtually murder an innocent unborn baby, to let a woman end innocent life you are saying that murder is okay, no matter what circumstance. People for pro-choice disagree when people for pro-life say that abortion is not allowed with the exception or rape and incest, but pro-life disagree when pro-choice allows abortion but still make murder illegal. It is hypocritical to allow an unborn baby have his or her life taken away with praise, but a murderer who, for example, shoots another person, faces immense consequences. Both circumstances seize life, and to allow one and not the other is totally hypocritical. Pro-life believe that any type of murder should face serious consequences, this is simply because any act of taking life is inhumane.


      Instead of trying to support abortion this country needs to focus in on educating children in areas that concern the consequences of sex. Children should also have abstinence enforced to influence their decisions when it comes to sex. As another option, contraceptives such as condoms only, should be introduced and explained to full extent. Women must also know that this is never 100% effective and the consequences which will proceed if complications occur. Women should also have facilities to go to for crucial help while pregnant to prevent this inhumane act. Unborn babies should always attain the natural right to live. Even in the case of rape or incest, it is extremely important to preserve the natural rights of the unborn baby. At the point of conception, nothing but the unborn child's rights to survive should be observed. Abortion is a selfish decision that is completely wrong. It is the responsibility of educators, adults, parents, and guardians to provide children with the knowledge they will need to prevent abortion. We do not want to let this tragedy be the way out of the women’s problems. Women who carry their children to term are recognized as extremely strong and influential. We cannot teach the young women and girls in this country that murder of an unborn child is sensible. We need to reassure the woman’s strength while preserving an unborn child’s natural rights to live in this world.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad