"Africa is, indeed, coming into fashion." - Horace Walpole (1774)


a heartbeat away?

So, according to Sarah Palin, Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, but the interpretation of privacy rights on which it was based is okay. Also, she clearly does not know any other Supreme Court cases off the top of her head.

(Pssst! Sarah! The answer is "the flag burning cases"! Or how about Dred Scott?)


Blogger CharlieMac said...

Katie C's question was, "Are there any Supreme Court decisions you disagree with?" The correct anwer for any American has to be and always will be "Yes!"
Biden's answer if you analize it was self grandizing crap.
Palin's answer was closer to the correct answer, but a little evasive.
Hey, we are talking about politicians here. One tried to pump themselves up, the other offered to obey the law of the land.
Charlie Mac

Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:57:00 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. I thought Dred Scott should have been low hanging fruit. How hard would it have been to say, “Gee Katie, I seem to think that one case when they said black people were property… that was bad.” Or how about even "I don't think that separate but equal worked out very well." Maybe I'm being picky but you'd think being a part of the group that is constantly ranting against "liberal activist judges" she could have described something they did that she disagreed with.

Thursday, October 02, 2008 5:27:00 PM

Blogger Kevin Bussey said...

Do you think Roe v. Wade was a bad decision?

Thursday, October 02, 2008 5:35:00 PM

Blogger texasinafrica said...

Biden's answer was self-serving, absolutely (remember, I don't like him one bit). But at least it was an answer. It wasn't that Palin doesn't disagree with any cases - the question was with what cases she disagrees other than Roe v. Wade. Palin could not answer the question - she clearly didn't know any cases other than Roe v. Wade.

Kevin, I think the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade was a little out there. I also think that none of us really believe that we don't have a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Thursday, October 02, 2008 6:36:00 PM

Blogger CharlieMac said...

How are privacy and killing related? Is it OK to kill the result of a love tryst, but not the trystee? Why? Because one has had a birthday and the other has not?
How about killing a baby on it's birthday as in partial birth abortion? What if you intended a partial birth abortion and it suddenly sipped all the way out, is it legal to continue the abortion?
People who believe abortion is legal should see just what a 6 to 8 week old fetus looks like up close and personal. It really does look like a human!
If an abortion does not kill a baby, it is a failed abortion, right? Making the decision as to when life begins does not take a degree of any kind. Having seen animal and human embryos in the early stages of development I can tell you it is well within MY pay grade to tell you that they were alive before they were killed.
Maybe answering Katie Couric's question with yes is too simple. Maybe the answer should be, "Hell yes! I disagree with a number of their decisions, but Roe v Wade is and was by far the worst!"
There are many Supreme Court decisions I did not and do not agree with, but I do not remember them, so how do I pick one to talk about. There are many and you and I, like Palin, just go along with the law of the land.
Charlie Mac

Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:53:00 PM

Blogger texasinafrica said...

Mac, I'm just referring to the reasoning that was used in the case. Roe v. Wade was decided on the argument that privacy rights are implied in the 14th amendment, and that those rights extend to a woman's decisions about pregnancies in the first trimester.

When Palin said that she believes there's a right to privacy, she made a key error. Conservatives who have a good understanding of Roe v. Wade and the law usually disagree with that reasoning and would rarely say they believe there's a right to privacy. She either answered the question before she thought about it, or she didn't understand it.

Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:37:00 PM

Blogger David McCullars said...

Mac, Palin didn't give the honest answer. The honest answer would have been "I don't know" or "I can't think of any other cases on the top of my head" (which I confess would have been my response, TIA) or even to come back with "I'm running for vice president not supreme court judge." Any of those would be "correct" answers. What we got was the stammering, vacuous dodge of a Miss America contestant.

Say what you like about Biden. Disagree vehemently with his political stance by offering understandably passionate appeals for the value of life and the humanity of embryos. But what you can not disagree with is that this is NOT an issue that the American electorate has a consensus on, not even close.

Our country was founded on the principles of compromise, and it is what it is today because of that legacy. Failing to see (or choosing not to see) the overwhelming numbers that disagree with you -- and more importantly not taking the time to listen and discuss ways of compromise -- is the fundamental problem in our political culture today. I was very impressed with Biden's comment tonight (even if it was empty) on how to heal the partisanship of DC -- by stop assuming your opposition's motives are bad. Wow, what a difference that could make ...

Thursday, October 02, 2008 11:35:00 PM

Blogger CharlieMac said...

I agree compromise is necessary in some instances, but certainly not all. There are certain principles a person, politician or not, simply must absolutely stand by. It does not matter whether one "sees" or understands the other person viewpoint or not.
Charlie Mac

Friday, October 03, 2008 6:21:00 AM

Blogger David McCullars said...

I think you have confused principles for laws. Principles don't need (and as you argue shouldn't contain) compromise -- it's what guides you, your compass. But laws are an entirely different creature. Laws are the end-result of hashing out compromises (based on those competing principles) with the people you live with, many of whom may disagree fundamentally with you.

Say you are the minority in a community of mostly (e.g.) Muslims. Your way would have all the laws be based solely on the majority's principles and ignore yours. But the traditional American way is to pass laws that attempt to respect BOTH their principles as well as yours (as well as the other minorities in your community). No one is asking you or them to change your principles. But what you are being asked to do is agree to disagree and compromise on laws so that we can live in harmony. But here's where it gets good -- you have the freedom of speech. So you can try and convince the other side of your principles all you like, even after the law is in effect. That comes with a huge responsibility, though -- a responsible member of the community listens to the other side's principles, even as hard as that is sometimes.

If only we actually did that all the time ... what a world it could be.

Friday, October 03, 2008 12:49:00 PM

Anonymous Michael Westmoreland-White said...

You'd think she could have at least named U.S. v. Exxon since it concerns Alaska and her supposed energy expertise. Sigh.

Saturday, October 04, 2008 9:18:00 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home