Thursday, October 02, 2008
Sarah Palin..... is Retarded
In case you missed it, last night CBS aired a segment where Katie Couric interviewed the two VP candidates separately, but asked them the same questions.
When Couric asked Palin to name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade, Palin was unable to do so. Instead she rambled out the same inane gibberish she always does.
What was especially hilarious was not just her profound ignorance in not being able to name or even give the gist of a single Supreme Court decision, but rather when Couric asked Palin whether Palin believes in a Constitutional right of privacy, Palin said that she did. Umm, what? In case you didn't know, the entire foundation behind Roe v. Wade and the case which later replaced it, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, is that the Supreme Court held there is a constitutional right of privacy. Hence, that is the very thing that makes abortion legal. A constitutional right of privacy is 100% against everything conservatives stand for. For 30 years the conservative movement in America has been fighting against this very concept.
This woman is so stupid it is painful watching her. If you don't know a single thing about the Supreme Court of the United States, thats fine. But guess what, it also precludes you from being Vice President. Somewhere in Boston, Mittens Romney must be hitting his head against a brick wall right now, knowing that the Republican party would prefer having a brain-dead idiot as Vice President rather than a Harvard educated Mormon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
4 comments:
You are mischaracterizing what conservatives believe. This is like a non Mormon telling what a Mormon believes. Just doesn’t work.
Most conservatives’ believe in some sort of Rights to Privacy. Obviously because they are alluded to in the 3rd and 4th amendments as far as search and seizure is concerned. But the argument is that "Rights to Privacy" is no where in the constitution itself. Only alluded to in certain specific situations.
So not everything can fall under that phrase but only the specific ones outlined in the Constitution itself.
Under your same critique of Palin does that mean that Biden is equally unqualified to be vice since he has stated that there is a "Liberty Clause" in the 14th Amendment? Or says that Roe Vs Wade is constitutional law only because it has kept social peace?
^ Scott, thanks for reading and commenting on the blog. It's good to know my posts don't just go out to die in the ether, its cool generating a discussion about these things.
With regard to your comment on the 3rd & 4th Amendments, I would disagree with you that either of those have anything to do with 'privacy,' at least from a technical Constitutional jurisdprudence perspective.
The Conservative philosophical position, as applied to the 3rd & 4th Amendments, would say that they derive their power not from concerns about privacy, but from pre-Constitutional common law property rights. Owners of real property have a protected interest in excluding others from their real property and chattel, meaning that you have a property interest in excluding others from your land.
So, my ability to kick trespassers off of my land is not because I have a right of privacy to my land, but because I have a property right in excluding trespassers from my land. In other words, conservative jurisprudence would say that with regard to those two Amendments, any 'privacy' you have in your real property is at best incidental to your right of exclusion from real property.
It would not make sense for Conservative jurisprudence to argue that there is an 'implied' privacy right with regard to property, but no implied privacy right with regard to the human body.
But more specifically to your point about Joe Biden, I am not really sure what you mean by saying there is no "liberty clause."
The 14th Amendment, Section 1, has two clauses, the (i) Due Process Clause, and the (ii) Equal Protection Clause.
Under the Due Process Clause, the Amendment's text says: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, LIBERTY, or property, without due process of law..."
Basically, when Biden talks about 'Liberty Clause,' he is simply referring to the Due Process clause of the 5th & 14th Amendment.
The reason that lawyers use the term 'liberty clause' when referring to the Due Process Clause is because of the case Poe v. Ullman.
In that case, the ultra CONSERVATIVE Justice John Harlan laid out what is considered to be the authoritative explanation of what Due Process is.
He said: "This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints." Harlan argued that the due process clause encompassed a right to privacy.
Basically, it was originally the Conservative members of the Supreme Court who argued that the 'liberty' discussed in the Due Process Clauses applied to individual rights and freedoms. That is conservative philosophy 101.
As this stuff applies to Roe v. Wade, nobody argues it has anything to do with 'keeping social peace,' that doesn't have anything to do with it. The argument about the legality of abortion stems from the notion of whether Privacy is a fundamental or non-fundamental right. If it is fundamental, then something called Substantive Due Process Strict Scrutiny is the 'rule' that controls the government's power in crafting laws restricting what people can do with their bodies. If it is not fundamental, then something called Due Process Rational Basis Scrutiny is the test that is applied.
What is most insulting above all about Palin is not only the fact that she could only recall one supreme court case -but the fact that the supreme court recently ruled this year on a case called Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. In Exxon v. Baker the supreme court deemed the 5 billion in punative damages for the Valdez mess was excessive and significantly reduced it. I would think that the governor of Alaska would at least know the name of a recent Supreme Court Decision where billions of dollars hung in the balance for Alaska residents.
Post a Comment