Palin Endorses Constitutional Right to Privacy
Ah, the plot thickens. CBS has just released the segment of the Couric interview where Palin is asked about Supreme Court decisions. Check out this exchange:
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.
It sure looks like Palin has no idea what she's talking about on this issue of greatest concern to her social conservative fans. She may be the first person I've ever heard who simultaneously endorses a federal constitutional right to privacy while arguing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. And if, of course, as Palin said twice, there is a right to privacy embedded in the U.S. Constitution, it's completely nonsensical to talk about "individual states" handling it as they see fit.
Eyebrows have already been raised over this quote over at The Corner, suggesting that the McCain campaign's going to be hearing a lot tomorrow from conservative legal scholars.
UPDATE: Hilzoy's all over this story at The Political Animal, and connects the dots nicely.
Comments
Why do Democrats waste their time trying to get an edge on every single thing that comes out of an opponent's mouth? This is a perfectly legitimate argument by Palin. I can see there IS an inherent right to privacy. The government has no right spying on what we do with our lives, what we watch, where we get or information from, etc.
HOWEVER, this doesn't go against the belief that abortion is wrong and should be outlawed. The topic has about 50% of Americans supporting it as a "mother's choice" and the other 50% are for saving an unborn baby! Murdering would obviously NOT be protected under the Constitution. It is a giant opinion: religion vs. science, property, life & death, etc. It's a bundle of opinions that cross many boundaries with many pros and cons depending on how you look at it (god forbid you look with a perspective not of a staunch democrat).
Finally, HOW DARE SHE let the PEOPLE of the STATE decide on a LAW! OUTLANDISH... Oh, wait. THAT IS WHAT DEMOCRACY SHOULD BE! Much like the Constitution, this topic is not clear cut: it doesn't just fall into the privacy clause. I think Palin handled herself quite well: She passed the judgment to the states. The government should allow privacy and butt out of a decision that states should make.
PS. Ed you are Male, if I am (hopefully) correct. You will have no baby so I suggest you let the women deal with this topic because it is far above you.
Posted by: fishy1624![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 7, 2008 05:34 PM
"Why do Democrats waste their time trying to get an edge on every single thing that comes out of an opponent's mouth?"
You have to be kidding? Do you not pay attention to the McCain campaign? They have been the masters at out of context comments, not to mention out of context votes, passed bills, etc... Lipstick on a pig? Whaaa waaa waaa, Disrespectful! Excessive use of powers as a governor? Boo hoo hoo, Sexists!
Even though I'm for state rights neither party seems to support that. Republicans can't pick and choose which rights they get to choose.
Posted by: bubba![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 7, 2008 08:56 PM
I know both campaigns are dirty and spin whatever they do- but my intent was not to bash liberals; solely the author, a Democrat. My post was solely to show that her comment was not hypocritical and to show there are multiple sides to this argument. Let us both agree that US politics could use a Change that neither politician elected can truly bring.
Posted by: fishy1624![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 8, 2008 05:02 AM