Welcome to PatsFans.com

Good column about Palin and the Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Oct 2, 2008.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,181
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +290 / 12 / -10

    But, think about it: If you were a national politician and were asked about a case you disagreed with, you don't think you could have thought of any of the following: Plegy v. Ferguson, Drew Scott, Lawrence v. State of Texas (legalized homosexuality), Jerry Falwell v. Larry Flynt, the 2000 ruling that gave the election to Bush, Miranda, Bakkie, campaign financing. It's pretty amazing that she wasn't well enough read to give some kind of intelligent answer.

    This column makes other interesting points, such as:

    Couric-Palin: The Supreme Court Question - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

    In response to a follow-up question by Ms. Couric, Ms. Palin said she believed there was an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution. That view is sharply at odds with some conservatives, who believe that the court was wrong to cite a right to privacy as the basis of its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion.

    Ms. Palin did not say how she could believe in a right to privacy and oppose Roe v. Wade. After Ms. Couric called the right to privacy “the cornerstone” of the decision, Ms. Palin again said she believed in a right to privacy: “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 in an issue like that.”
     
  2. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,332
    Likes Received:
    497
    Ratings:
    +1,144 / 13 / -27

    #87 Jersey

    She had a brain fart ... we all get those.
     
  3. Turk

    Turk Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0


    She did not know FBN.
    Admit it.

    FBN, You are a true Republican.
    An old school, Mid-West, self-reliant Republican that belives in the American Dream, that believes that with hard work, anything can be achieved in this beautiful land.

    Do you honestly believe this shallow woman shares the same values?
    Do you honestly belive that this woman actually has any depth?
    That she is the best choice for the second highest office?

    Or is she a clueless embarrassment to, well....America?
    Wasn't Bush enough of a blabbering idiot, why does what has taken over the Republican Party insist on another?
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2008
  4. scout

    scout Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,716
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    Caught a Fred Thompson statement, the reason Palin did not know any other Supreme Court cases was because she did not attend law school. She is a non-lawyer candidate, thus did not get a list of cases. You could call this the dumbing down of Fred Thompson. I guess I should have been a lawyer as I can state a number of Supreme Court cases and I don't even have a journalism degree, I mean law degree.
     
  5. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,780
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +89 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    It's Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott but a softball answer could also have be Kelo v New London which legalized eminent domain and taking of private property for private ventures...

    KELO V. NEW LONDON
     
  6. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,674
    Likes Received:
    311
    Ratings:
    +609 / 7 / -7

    Yeah, I actually did not think it was terrible, because the phrasing was "besides Roe v. Wade..." and most people do not know the names of cases... so most people won't mark her down for not knowing them by name, and clearly she couldn't say "ya know, that one where..." like she's naming a Friends episode.

    As Olberman joked about, she could have screwed up and said Alien v. Predator, but that's about what most people know in terms of "v." anything.

    PFnV
     
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,923
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12


    The only people who memorize cases are lawyers, we have too many lawyers in government. The important thing is the type of judge she favors. not being a law student.
     
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,655
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +530 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    The right to privacy may have been the cornerstone of the decision but you can believe in the right to privacy and oppose Roe v. Wade. We all believe in the Freedom of Speech but it doesn't override everything. Same with the right to privacy. I have a right to privacy inside my own home but that doesn't mean I can kill my kids if I'm in my own house. Same for the abortion argument for those of us who believe it's the killing of a human life.
     
  9. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,780
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +89 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey


    What many who oppose abortion object to is the fact that the right to privacy is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution. It is only what Justice Douglas called the "penumbra of rights" that articulated the right to privacy that bothers strict constructionalists.
     
  10. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,629
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +102 / 15 / -9

    The supreme court is a total joke.

    Their decisions are not based on the constitution.
    They take a passage and spin it to meet their political views.

    Tell me a case & if is is a left vs right issue, I bet I can tell you how Ruth Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas are going to vote.
     
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,969
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +424 / 12 / -26

    Why don't you amend the constitution?? and get rid of them, as much as I often do not agree, always respect their decisions...

    If they are not based on the constitution, what are they based on??
     
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,181
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +290 / 12 / -10

    I believe that people have an absolute right to privacy with regard to their own bodies. What do you believe?
     
  13. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,629
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +102 / 15 / -9

    Their decisions are based on their political views.

    If I am wrong, why does 98+% of Gingsburg's decisions favor the left?

    Ginsburg is a left wing loon who uses her seat to meet her own political vlews.

    She is not the only one.... she is just an example.

    If you think she considers the constitution, you are wrong.
     
  14. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,780
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +89 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    Patters,

    I'm not baiting you but I would like to know how you definite an absolute right? At what point does a fetus inside a pregnant woman gain any rights, namely the right not to be aborted? IIRC Roe v Wade gave the fetus rights once it became viable (then 6th month)and if you ascribe to that view, it's not an absolute right, is it?
     
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,674
    Likes Received:
    311
    Ratings:
    +609 / 7 / -7

    Okay, how would you replace the role of the Supreme Court, since it is "a total joke"?
     
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,923
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12


    When does a baby become a human being and have constitutional rights?
     
  17. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,780
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +89 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    PF13,
    Don't expect an answer. I asked the same thing (post #14) yesterday and I'll still waiting.................................
     
  18. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,655
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +530 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    First, they don't or all drugs would be legal.

    That aside, I do believe that people should have the right to not be ripped apart inside their mother's wombs.
     
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,674
    Likes Received:
    311
    Ratings:
    +609 / 7 / -7

    When a baby is born, he or she is a human being. When a baby's born in America, or of American citizens, he or she is an American.

    That's all the Constitution has to say about it. Curious, since abortion has been practiced for millenia.

    The bible is similarly mute on the subject. Again, curious for a document so concerned with choosing good over evil.

    But of course, nobody counted on the improvements dreamed up in the last century or so by religions, the AMA last century, and easily manipulated politicians.

    I'd concern myself more with those already alive, myself... and preventing unwanted pregnancies. As Bristol Palin's predicament demonstrates, no matter how religiously and socially conservative one's home environment is, abstinence cannot be counted on as a means of avoiding unintentional pregnancies. Or rather, the good intention of abstinence. So she's a rich kid who won't have her life turned upside down -- she is lucky. If she were a poor kid, she would have a predicament, rather than a little surprise miracle.

    No fetus, no abortion. No issue.

    PFnV
     
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,923
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12




    So if a child is born prematurely at say 7 months is a human being another child conceived 2 weeks earlier in the womb isn't a human being?



    Seems like pretty tortured 'logic'. :confused:
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>