Jesus H. Christ. This woman doesn't understand have a basic 9th grade understanding of how the legal / judicial system works! In this clips, Palin dishes about why she doesn't like Roe v. Wade. Couric astutely asks if Palin believes the Constitution includes an inherent right to privacy. Palin responds, "I do. Yea I do. I do and I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the fifty states would like to see their will ushered in on an issue like that." Um, sorry lady. If it's mandated by the US Constitution, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.
Couric goes on to ask Palin "What other Surpreme Court decisions do you disagree with?" I feel bad for Palin here -- because you just *know* Couric was preying on Palin's obvious lack of knowledge here. I'm not sure other candidates would have been asked this question. But nonetheless, it's a question that deserves answering. I mean, after all, if you want to overturn one Supreme Court case, what about others? She couldn't name any others, of course.
It brings to mind Whoopie's (flip) question to John McCain on The View about whether she should be worried about being a slave again. Now the issues are very different -- the 13th Amendment outlaws slavery. There is no blatant amendment that calls for a "right to privacy," which is the issue over abortion. But Palin has just said she believes that the Constitution includes an inherent right to privacy. Honestly she doesn't understand the importance of that admission, so it's a bit silly to try to hold her to this mucked up attempt at "strict interpretation" that she's floundering on. But it's worth pointing out -- because she's an election and a heart attack away from the Presidency.
And a 9th grader would understand that Roe vs. Wade was a direct attack on the Constitution. Regardless of what one thinks about abortion (I personally have no problem with it), the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution clearly state that if an issue isn't spelled out in the Constitution already, then it's an issue for the states and the people (i.e. the Federal government needs to stay out of it). So when the Supreme Court decided on Roe vs. Wade, the committed an illegal and unconstitutional act.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, specifically developed to put limits on the federal government. This means the federal government is not above the law.
You just don't get it, Mike. The whole point of the abortion / Roe v. Wade debate is WHETHER the Constitution does or does not include a right to privacy. If it does, then Roe v. Wade is a perfectly sound legal decision. If it does not, then you would be correct. But she has said here that it DOES include that provision. That's the important distinction at hand here.
About Us Trevorade is a community of people just like you who spend their days thinking about sex, gay men's health, and HIV/AIDS. Welcome!
We Need Your Support We're supported almost exclusively by donations from generous souls like yourself. So please, if you enjoy the content here, shell out a few gay dollars to help us cover our hosting bills.
Clips
N' Chips
Liberal-Minded. Antillean-American. Queer.
Non-PC Feminist.
Joe.
My. God.
Gay Culture, Short Stories, & More! NY-Based.
Kaleidoscope
Fellow Ann Arborite and
Gay Blogger. Sexuality & Human Rights focus.
Knucklecrack
Gay Activist Eric Levin's Fabulous NY-Based
Blog.
Pam's House Blend
She's a fabulous North Carolinian blogging about politics, LGBT and women's rights, the influence of the far Right, and race relations. What more can I say?
And a 9th grader would understand that Roe vs. Wade was a direct attack on the Constitution. Regardless of what one thinks about abortion (I personally have no problem with it), the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution clearly state that if an issue isn't spelled out in the Constitution already, then it's an issue for the states and the people (i.e. the Federal government needs to stay out of it). So when the Supreme Court decided on Roe vs. Wade, the committed an illegal and unconstitutional act.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, specifically developed to put limits on the federal government. This means the federal government is not above the law.
You just don't get it, Mike. The whole point of the abortion / Roe v. Wade debate is WHETHER the Constitution does or does not include a right to privacy. If it does, then Roe v. Wade is a perfectly sound legal decision. If it does not, then you would be correct. But she has said here that it DOES include that provision. That's the important distinction at hand here.