In The Blogs
- ‹ previous
- 2427 of 2731
- next ›
Palin on Privacy
PALIN ON PRIVACY....From Katie Couric's interview with Sarah Palin tonight:
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.
Hmmm. This is decidedly not the opinion of most conservatives, is it? Privacy is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, but in 1965 Justice William O. Douglas wrote in Griswold v. Connecticut that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees" — and that the right of privacy was one of them. This has since become a much mocked phrase among conservatives, an archetype of the kind of "judicial activism" that they loathe. But Palin says she supports it. Hmmm.
Of course she believes in a right to privacy. How else would she have been able to dodge a bona fide press conference over the past month? Though I must admit I am perplexed by her all-Couric, all-the-time strategy.
Since in the same interview she was unable to name a Supreme Court case besides Roe v Wade, I think it's safe to assume that Governor Palin has no idea what she is talking about with regard to a constitutional right to privacy. No doubt the right wing doesn't take her at her word, and no doubt the rest of us shouldn't have to take her seriously but for McCain's spectacularly foolish choice.
That was the very first thing that struck me watching this interview. Asserting a right to privacy is like waving a red flag to many social conservatives. It's going to be fascinating to see how they react. I'm not sure how they're going to spin this...this goes right to the core of their intellectual argument.
Could this be the pretext for dumping Palin? It's kind of a long shot, but you can see a scenario where this causes social conservatives to jump ship. If they do then there's no reason to keep her, is there?
Wow. I suppose she can revise and amend at the debate tomorrow, but this strikes me as the mother of all Palin gaffes. I don't think the magnitude of it is going to be evident for a while yet.
Someone whose teenage daughter's pregnancy was just exposed to national media scrutiny might develop some sympathy for the idea of a right to privacy.
Palin is a ditz who has no business being in this race, but I'm not sure why in principle pro-life conservatives have to disagree with the idea of a right to privacy. It seems like a pretty libertarian-ish negative right.
She also suggested that she had no issue with widespread availability of the morning-after pill, which puts her at even further odds with her conservative brethren.
Of course there's a right to privacy. I've got every right in the world to own as many guns as I want without the government keeping tabs on them. No, wait, ummm. . . I got a right to assemble with like minded types without the guv looking under my robes to find out who I am. Well. . . I got a right not to pay no taxes, and the guvmine ain't got no business knowing how much I make. Or to come snooping around my still, neither.
Palin is a ditz who has no business being in this race, but I'm not sure why in principle pro-life conservatives have to disagree with the idea of a right to privacy. It seems like a pretty libertarian-ish negative right.
I think that if you didn't know how "right to privacy" was used by Roe V. Wade, you would certainly expect conservatives to favor it.
That they don't, because of Roe V. Wade, tells a great deal about how politics influences logic and principles.
I learned two things in that interview.
1. Palin agrees with the court's decision in Roe v. Wade.
2. Palin doesn't know what the court decided in Roe v. Wade.
I'm not sure why in principle pro-life conservatives have to disagree with the idea of a right to privacy.
Because a constitutionally protected right to privacy is the foundation of the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade. And we can't allow privacy if it allows you to decide whether or not to murder a womb baby.
It seems like a pretty libertarian-ish negative right.
First, don't expect internal consistency in "conservative" thinking. Second, don't assume that, for most people, libertarian ideology on the right extends much past not having to pay taxes.
Privacy under FISA-Radio Shack devices that can tap cell phones and wireless computer signals-Real Estate Agents that can list your full credit history-You submit social security numbers to Credit Score Companies that you don't know from Adam and you think Palin isn't too bright?
It's going to be fascinating to see how they react. I'm not sure how they're going to spin this...this goes right to the core of their intellectual argument.
They will spin it the way they've been spinning all of this: it's the liberal media playing gotcha with Sarah. That doesn't make any sense you say? Welcome to the right-wing echo chamber these days.
First, don't expect internal consistency in "conservative" thinking.
It's not just the conservatives. When it comes to civil rights, most of us liberals like a strong federal government. When it comes to gay marriage and universal health care, we're all states rights.
I'm a little confused. Is this the interview where she couldn't name ANY Supreme Court decisions? Because in this one, she couldn't name any decisions she didn't agree with.
Are there TWO interviews?
TIA.
I'm going to take a wild leap and state that I don't think Gov. Palin knew what the question meant, nor the implications it has to Roe v Wade.
Pretty long leap, huh?
When it comes to gay marriage and universal health care, we're all states rights.
Huh? I'm all in favor of a strong federal government providing universal healthcare and getting states to allow gay people the right to marry.
Here we are in the midst of a complex economic crisis and we have a reasonable chance of ending up with POW (Palin of Wasilla) as a Vice-President.
I think the country had this insight the last few days and as a result, POW and POW are heading down the polls.
Huh? I'm all in favor of a strong federal government providing universal healthcare and getting states to allow gay people the right to marry.
Yes, and so we all will be should the Supreme Court decide in that direction.
Until then, we support the strong states rights position of MA and CA.
A) She may have been thinking of the Alaska constitution, which does have an explicit right to privacy.
B) She may genuinely believe in a constitutiona right to privacy, and is therefore not the hardcore conservative that many think she is (opponents and supporters alike).
C) She may have no idea what's going on at this point. I mean, she couldn't even cite the Exxon Valdez ruling, which she denounced when it was handed down three months ago.
Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?Palin: Well, let's see. [blah, blah, blah, no answer.]Couric: Can you think of any?Palin: Well, I could think of [blah, blah, blah, can’t think of any.]
Sarah Palin in running for Vice President. She cannot name a single Supreme Court case she doesn't agree with. Not Kelo (government can use eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another). Not Massachusetts v. EPA (Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases). (These examples selected as ones that conservatives often cite as ones they don't like.) Not even Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott! Was she sleeping during high school American history, and has she slept through the past 20 years too?
It would be nice if tomorrow night Ifill would ask her to expand on her view on a constitutional right to privacy.
Don't hold your breath.
As for SCOTUS decision she disagrees with, duh - Exxon Valdez damages case, anyone?
You know, that nutbag Rothschild woman who's supporting McCain said much the same thing. When asked if she was concerned about a McCain appointed Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade, she scoffed saying it was a Democratic scare tactic, and that the right of privacy is in the Constitution!!! Sheez!
What I took from this exchange wasn't that Sarah Palin believes in a constitutionally-protected right to privacy; it was that she has no idea what constitutionally protected rights are. Because immediately after stating that she believed there was a fundamental right to privacy, she returned to her states' rights talking points, arguing that the states ought to be able to respond to the wishes of their majorities on these questions. The whole point of constitutional rights is that they can't be overridden by the simple will of the majority.
Kevin, and other persons not knowledgable about the law, should not attempt to wade into supposedly intellectual commentary on the issue of the constitution. Conservatives obviously believe there is a right to privacy within the constitution. For example, Roberts and Alito testified as follows at their confirmation hearings when they were asked if the constitution protects a right to privacy:
Roberts:
Senator, I do. The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.
Alito:
Senator, I do agree that the Constitution protects a right to privacy.
Palin obviously did not provide a strong answer on what other cases she disagreed with (and Biden provided a ridiculous answer that mistated Roe), but let's be real on the right to privacy issue.
And of course Roberts and Alito didn't reneg on anything they said at their confirmation hearings. No sir.
scottap:
I think you should consider my admonition that folks who are not knowledgable about the law should stay away from commentary about constitutional issues.
However, against my better judgment, what statements by Roberts and Alito do you think they renegged upon?
The last comment was by Brian and directed to Scottap, not by Scottap.
"Conservatives obviously believe there is a right to privacy within the constitution."
*Some* conservatives may believe that. Scalia, in my presence, said in effect, "the founders were smart people. If they wanted to say 'privacy' they would have said 'privacy.' But the word appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights. So there's no right to privacy."
And I think a closer look at Roberts's and Alito's answers would actually get you to a very similar place. The quartering clause, for example, protects privacy. But it wouldn't protect privacy in the Roe sense. "Various ways," he said. Not all ways.
All over the conservative blogs (e.g. at the Corner), people are trotting out Roberts' and Alito's confirmation hearings to prove that conservatives DO believe ina right to privacy.
Be that as it may, that's not the issue; the issue is that Palin had clearly never before heard that a right to privacy had anything to do with Roe. This is obvious from the way she ignores Couric's question about privacy and rambles on about states' rights.
Altoid,
So you want privacy protected in "all ways." Like if a terrorist is making a bomb in the privacy of his home?
Just as an example, the 3rd and 4th amendments obviously protect privacy rights. I have no idea if you are quoting Scalia accurately and in context. He obviously would say that there is no privacy right to support Roe, and he just as oviously would say privacy rights are protected by the 3rd and 4th amendments.
Much has been said about expectations for Palin in tomorrow nights debate. The suggestion is that she debates well, rather, debates are formatted for a BSer.
Biden must expose her since a format without many follow ups suits her.
I suggest he attempts to answer that he paraphrase what the governor had previously said.
For example: Q ~ More than X# of Americans are uninsured today, we are seeing alarming increases in unemployment with more to come - growth slowing, the value of the dollar puts American consumers in a vulnerable position. Each of you tell me what your respective administrations would do to make healthcare affordable and/or accessible?
Palin: (Just Imagine)!
Biden: I agree with the governor, America is a great place full of hard workers deserved of both access to and affordable care, our economic situation goes further in jeopardizing what should be a Right; apparently a McCain/Palin administration wouldn't address it, or Gov. Palin can't explain how they plan to ensure something so basic as healthcare for the Americans people. An Obama/Biden administration would make healthcare affordable for all Americans and you can find out more about in at ObamaBiden.com.
If he has the time, he can answer in more detail, but he should highlight her dance around specifics and her spouting of gibberish.
Why waist time answering questions Palin isn't bothering to address. Let Obama do the heavy lifting.
Wow, I can't believe this. Excerpt from Wapo/ABC poll. The article is linked in my Url link. My faith in the American voter is reviving, even if it is at a slow pace:
"Nearly a third of adults in a new poll from the Pew Research Center said they paid a lot of attention to Palin's interviews with CBS News's Katie Couric, a series that prompted grumbling among some conservative commentators about Palin's competency to be the GOP's vice presidential standard-bearer. The Pew poll showed views of Palin slipping over the past few days alone."
Is the McCain campaign so incompetent that they forgot to run a wire through Palin's suit to give her the right answers in response to Couric's questions? Rememeber that mysterious bulge in Bush's suit during the 2004 debates? Knowing these interviews are going to be important, why didn't they figure out a way to feed Palin better answers?
Or maybe they did and that explains why Palin rambled on and on incohesively -- she couldn't synchronize her thoughts with the voice in her ears.
After watching McCain in action the last few weeks, I can't believe he is still 40% + in practically all polls. Who are these 40% and why do they hate America?
Two things to consider: The Alaskan constitution contains a right to privacy clause and many Alaskans are pretty libertarian. I imagine these forces explain why Palin is out of touch with the mainstream conservative view.
Someone whose teenage daughter's pregnancy was just exposed to national media scrutiny might develop some sympathy for the idea of a right to privacy.
Nice use of the passive voice. It was the McCain campaign that announced young Miss Palin's "condition".
Scalia, in my presence, said in effect, "the founders were smart people. If they wanted to say 'privacy' they would have said 'privacy.' But the word appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights. So there's no right to privacy."
The Ninth Amendment specifically rejects that argument. I hope someone brought that up to him.
Alaska Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 22:
"The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed."
Is this just an example of Palin being so Alaska-centric that she is unaware of the debate on this issue in the country at large?
Palin supports privacy for herself and her family,sure.
You and your family,now thats a different matter.
your comment is incorrect- she could not come up with a supreme court decision that she disagreed with. Her view regarding right to privacy is more consistent with Griswold v CT than the judicial reach of Roe v wade
Thlayli,
The 9th Amendment has nothing to do with a right to privacy under the constitution. The amendment has to do with rights outside the constitution being retained. It was not relied upon in any way in the Roe case and it would be absurd to even argue that in 1788 the people retained a right to an abortion on demand under the 9th Amendment. It reads:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Katie Couric is doing a great job with these interviews. My regard for her has gone up immensely...
It's absurd that anyone takes Brian the total fucking moron seriously. First he complains:Kevin, and other persons not knowledgable about the law, should not attempt to wade into supposedly intellectual commentary on the issue of the constitution.And then, demonstrating no sense of self-awareness or irony, Brian, whose knowledge of the Constitution apparently fails to reach the level of Schoolhouse Rock, proceeds to do what he just admonished Kevin and others not to do.
Can you, Brian, name a landmark case (stature equaling Miranda, Roe, Plessy, or Marbury) that relied on the Ninth Amendment? Do you have any idea why that might be? Of course you don't. That's because you are a fuzzy-headed conservative with a bunch of mindless talking points. All of your blather is merely a way to distract from the fact that Palin is the least competent person ever put forward as VP. She makes Bush seem intelligent and well read.
I remember reading a Kathleen Parker column about 10 years ago.
She took an accidentally liberal position. She went with her gut without checking Conservative dogma.
I knew it was a position that included an implicit critique of the conservative position, but KP was too stupid or ignorant to know what she was saying.
In her next column she backtracked b/c it had been explained to her.
I expect Palin's answer is not particularly well formulated as an intellectual position. I wouldn't expect that Palin saying she believes in a "right to privacy" means boo in real world policy.
Y'all (like many) are grossly underestimating Palin. She's rattled, not an idiot.
She isn't particularly articulate, either, and never has been even when she wasn't nervous in the spotlight.
But her answer on a Constitutional right to privacy (that does not extend to abortion because of the kid) is entirely consistent with conservative dogma -- AND it is intended to reach out specifically to 30 million or so American voters who are Catholic, i.e., the "culture of life".
Moreover, she knows (as many of you evidently do not) that the public doesn't expect her to know Griswold from Gore v. Bush by name.
So let's not help her lower expectations.
Put it this way: if Ifill says "Do you want Roe overturned and if you do, do you want Griswold overturned also?", that's a set up that Palin OUGHT to win -- though she may be too nervous to pull it off (which in itself is disqualifying on temperament grounds, much the way McCain's anger issues are troubling.)
Don't get me wrong, I think McCain/ Palin have a fork in 'em, thank G-d, but I want the right demoralized in November. Accelerating their motivation to vote cuz the MSM is mean won't help that.
That's why Jeff Cooper has a point: press her where she's weak, not where she is strong but inarticulate.
I'd like Ifill to ask 'Governor, you've said that you believe there is a Constitutional right to privacy, yet you disagree that the Supreme Court should have extended that right to abortion. Since a Constitutional right is protected by the Federal government against state action, please explain your view of the Constitution in terms of where you would draw the privacy line, since these are all Constitutional examples: can a state prohibit married couples from contraception? What about single people, would a state law requiring a marriage license to buy condoms be Constitutional? Why not?Can states regulate abortion, if they can't regulate adult access to contraceptives? Do you agree with Senator Santorum that, having protected abortion as a privacy right, the Constitution slides down to protecting gay sex, and so on to bigamy, incest, and bestiality? Do you agree with Santorum that gay sex is like incest or bestiality? Where do YOU draw the Constitutional line on privacy? Put another way, which of these real examples would you want the Supreme Court to protect, and which could states like Alaska ban?"
LOL -- yeah, as if.
I've NEVER understood conservatives who hate the government and champion individual liberty, and yet don't believe in the right to privacy! They believe the government has the right to interfere in your personal, private life? How "conservative" is that?
It's perfectly consistent to believe in a right to privacy AND disagree with Roe. All you have to do is say "a right to privacy doesn't give you the license to murder another human being, which a fetus is."
You're simply saying that Roe logic linking abortions to privacy is incorrect. It's only a contradiction if you believe that the Roe logic is correct; then you have to do away with the right to privacy if you want to do away with Roe.
Palin can't say what you said john. Do you know why? Because a) she's not clever enough, b) her handlers would kill her. Did you not notice that she couldn't even come out and say she would criminalize abortion?
It's perfectly consistent to believe in a right to privacy AND disagree with Roe. All you have to do is say "a right to privacy doesn't give you the license to murder another human being, which a fetus is."
That position may be logically consistent outside of the Supreme Court, but no previous court decision has ever held that a fetus is a person. The legal precedent that underpins Roe v Wade is the finding of a right to privacy in the Constitution.
Quaker sez: "no previous court decision has ever held that a fetus is a person. "
You probably meant SCOTUS, but otherwise you're simply, flat-out wrong:
"See State v. Hammett, 384 S.E.2d 220, 221 (Ga. 1989) (holding that defendant who injured a pregnant woman such that her fetus, though born alive, subsequently died could be charged with the offense of vehicular homicide); People v. Hall, 557 N.Y.S.2d 879, 885 (App. Div. 1990) (holding that the evidence established that the infant was born alive and thus was a "person" within the meaning of the homicide statute, and that defendant's manslaughter conviction for the death of the infant did not violate either due process or equal protection); Cuellar, 957 S.W.2d at 141 (affirming defendant's conviction for intoxication manslaughter for injuries suffered by a fetus, who was born alive and subsequently died as a result of the accident injuries); State v. Cotton, 5 P.3d 918, 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that the homicide statutes apply to the killing of a child who is born alive, even if the death results from injuries inflicted before birth)." from Hawaii v Aiwohi in 2005.
You probably meant SCOTUS,
That is correct.
I also note that all three of your cites involve cases in which an infant was born alive. It appears that circumstance confers personhood.
Not so -- the cases specifically refer to injuries on the kid in the womb, e.g. "ntoxication manslaughter for injuries suffered by a fetus".
(That the kids were born alive -- or more bluntly, survived briefly outside the mother -- is a fact that sets up the charge, not a condition for the application of the law. These three cases -- there are others -- establish that bad guys inflicted injuries BEFORE the kid was born, and not incidentally, that these injuries were fatal TO A HUMAN BEFORE BIRTH, cuz otherwise the kid would have survived outside the mother. So, as a legal fact, courts have long held that a fetus is a person who can be injured and even killed before birth, with the same legal recourses available for similar injuries inflicted on the rest of us. Nice try, though. Next time don't say something so obviously wrong.)