Skip to comments.Couric Interview Illustrates Palin-Biden Divide, and Biden Comes Out Worse
Posted on 10/02/2008 9:21:55 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican
Palin explained her opposition to Roe v. Wade (the 1973 Supreme Court decision that precluded states from banning abortion) on federalism grounds; that abortion is a matter that is best left at the state level. Then Couric asked her what other Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with. Palin should have said that she is not a close student of the Supreme Court, and perhaps named someone she trusts who is. She should not have fumbled through an attempt at a substantive answer. But she did.
Still, as a constitutional-law professor, I was much more interestedand disappointedin the answers that Joe Biden gave.
I would have been much happier if Palin had given better answers to Couric. But her lack of knowledge of constitutional law would assumedly lead her to rely on others for advice on such matters. She doesn't know, but surely she realizes it. Biden, by contrast, has the smooth confidence of someone who has been immersed in these issues for decades. But he's wrong. To me, that's actually scarier.
(Excerpt) Read more at network.nationalpost.com ...
I had to excerpt it, so please click on the link above and read the whole thing.
Excellent essay and just reiterates the point that Biden has been in Washington forever but has done very little of value. He is still best known for plagiarizing a British politician. Palin’s newness to the process is superior to someone who has helped ruin it for over 30 years.
UpChuck Joe is a wily old socialist ninny.
The problem is that Biden is such a smooth talking liar that he is able to make people think he is an authority unless challenged by the interviewer, which would never happen with a MSM so called jornalist.
I’m really disappointed at the way Sarah Palin’s “knowledge base” has been handled by the McCain campaign. She obviously doesn’t have the national (and international) experience of the other principals involved. However, I believe that her JUDGMENT is far superior to any of them. The President and VP will both be surrounded by numerous advisors. The important thing is to be able to take that advice and translate it into solutions. I believe that is where the discussion of Palin’s abilities should be focused. Both Obama and Biden (and, yes, sometimes McCain) have proven track records as bad decision-makers.
I’m surprised she did’t mention the death penalty for child rapists case, or the eminent domain case that lets anyone with more money get the government to coerce us out of our homes (castles).
I saw Comic Interview when I looked at the title.
Neither Obama or Biden have ever had to make a decision of any consequence. Their careers have been as legislators who only cast votes along with many other legislators. Most if not all of thier votes were cast based on political motivations.
“I believe that her JUDGMENT is far superior to any of them.”
Exactly. we are supporting a principled conservative, not a Jeopardy champ.
I would have said the Dred Scott decision.
We should expect a bit more from our professional politicians. I, a naturalized US Citizen only since 2006 and a software engineer by trade, can do better than her on that particular question just from reading FreeRepublic 10 minutes per day for the last 8 years.
If we do not expect and demand that our elected officials be on top of their game, we end up with the likes of George Bush — a terrible communicator and an easy target for the leftist media. That, my FRiends is counter-productive for our cause and leads directly to the left taking over and implementing their agenda.
I do expect my federal elected officials to be experts on Federal Constitutional Law. I don’t want them to apply “judgment” when it comes to the Constitution. I want them to know its true meaning and protect it faithfully.
You put it into the words I’ve been thinking. It’s her JUDGEMENT that I trust. I believe she will do what is best for America and her citizens. To some extent, McCain will do what he thinks is best for America, too.
The other two - no way!! They are only interested in themselves and their judgement is extremely suspect.
we end up with the likes of George Bush
Palin will not be a W
But she should have been able to remember Kelo or some of the recent cases having to do with Gitmo.
Obviously the campaign should have better prepared her, but there is something unfair about expecting her to be a quiz-show expert on lots of topics that she won't have to deal with as V.P. I don't think Biden or Obama has ever faced hostile questioning of a similar character, ever.
I found Sarah Palin to be unknowledgable, unresponsive and incoherent.
And her views as stated in the interviews aren’t even pro-life.
Which at least partially explains why McCain picked her.
If that gets communicated well enough, she wins the race.
Joe Biden plagiarized a paper in law school and was almost expelled for it. During the Clarence Thomas hearings, Biden assured Thomas that he would ask simple questions in an “I’m your pal” type way, then proceeded to play gotcha with him. Biden lacks integrity. In my opinion, a lack of integrity is a more important disqualifier than the fact that a candidate cannot name her least favorite S.Ct. opinion.
Sarah Palin is 100% for the Right to Life. She stood up for it more strongly than any candidate for the Vice Presidency (or Presidency) ever has and she did that in nationally televised interviews.
Plagiarism, stand up Chuck, FDR Television, what looks like a total lack of sobriety on stage, and critiques of Obama. All of it.
85% of the practicing attorneys aren’t experts in Constitutional Law. And those who are spend their entire careers steeped in it.
Have you seen this one about Slow Joe:
It’s pretty good, but I would like to see more about his lack of integrity, called Liar.
Excellent post. I just wrote on another thread, are Gov. Palin's detractors seriously worried that in a Palin presidency, Putin or Ahmadinejad are going to subject her to an American History pop quiz??
The role of the voter is to decide which candidate he wishes to endow with the Public Trust. His first qualifier ought to be whether or not said candidate is trustworthy.
That Biden, someone with constant access to the media, should start such a vicious lie says something about his character (along with his other behavior). I don't know if it would be practical or advisable to try to use it against him (might even work to his advantage because of sympathy over the death of his wife and daughter).
And again, her answers to Couric are consistently pro-"choice". The culmination is when she says that the "morning-after" pill shouldn't be illegal.
The language Mrs. Palin uses is the same as the language used by folks like the Clintons to dance around the facts; it's just from the opposite side of claimed "positions."
PERSONALLY, I could care less about Sarah Palin's personal opinions, or what she might "counsel" someone to CHOOSE. I want to know where she stands on public policy. And it is clear from this interview that she has more "respect" for those who want public policy to continue to allow the deaths of thousands of babies in America every day than she does for the God-given and unalienable right to life that our Constitution gaurantees to every person.
Ridiculous. The interview is embarrassing.
“”States’ rights trump unalienable rights” is not a pro-life position. It wasn’t when Gerald R. Ford promulgated it. It isn’t when Ron Paul pushes it. It isn’t when John McCain or Sarah Palin profess it.”
States rights trumps unalienable rights is NOT Ron Paul’s position.
Here is his life at conception bill (see below).
2007-2008 (110th Congress) > H.R. 2597
A BILL To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007’.
SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress—
(1) the Congress declares that—
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof—
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates—
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.’.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.’.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.’.
SEC. 5. FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS NOT BINDING ON STATE OR LOCAL COURTS.
Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under the amendments made by sections 3 and section 4, is not binding precedent on the court of—
(1) any State or subdivision thereof;
(2) the District of Columbia; or
(3) any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, or any subdivision thereof.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on such date of enactment.
SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance, is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.
You really need to read the fine print. Having the authority is one thing, recognizing their sworn duty is another. Ron Paul does not. He does not believe that there is a national principle that protects the unalienable right to life.
His "states' rights trump unalienable rights" position is clear.
While Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid. - Ron Paul column, Federalizing Social Policy, January 31, 2006
“He does not believe that there is a national principle that protects the unalienable right to life. “
Where in the Constitution is the federal government given police powers to enforce laws within the States outside of the delegated powers of Art 1 Section 8?
I think that Ron Paul is of the view (which I share) that the federal government is so corrupt and so antagonistic to faith, family, life & liberty that it cannot be trusted with the kind of police power that would be required to enforce a direct federal abortion ban. I’m not interested in living under martial law(-lessness).
From a foundational perspective I agree that our State and local governments have a sworn duty to protect & defend life. Having listened to Ron Paul interviewed on the American View ~a year ago, I believe that he does too.
We stand a much better chance of passing an abortion ban at the state level (eg. South Dakota) than we do at the federal level. We can’t even seem to get a Republican majority Congress & President to eliminate federal Planned Parenthood funding - or FDA approval of Plan B!! Congress won’t pass a federal ban until the Christians in this country wake up, and without a pro-life Constitutional Congress, a President who tries it will end up impeached.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...”
I forgot to mention, even if you don’t agree with the states’ jurisdiction trumps federal police power argument, lumping Ron Paul in with the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, who has voted for Planned Parenthood funding, who until recently supported Roe vs. Wade, who doesn’t have the conviction to co-sponsor Senate personhood legislation etc. is just puzzling.
Those principles do not convey a police power to the federal government over State citizens.
Ignoring the Constitutional separation of powers and jurisdictions is risky. Pro-lifers, of all people, should be intimately aware of the consequences.
The President of the United States must take a Constitutionally-mandated oath of office in which he swears to preserve, protect and defend that document. Obviously, that means the principles contained therein.
Every officer of the United States takes a similar oath.
The Constitution asserts as its ultimate purpose "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Posterity is by definition made up entirely of those who are not yet born.
The Fourteenth Amendment is also part of the document. It's words are clear:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Do you believe that unborn children are persons? Because, even Judge Blackmun in the majority Roe vs. Wade decision admitted that if they are persons, they are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
I believe that Ron Paul, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin, et al, are worse than Blackmun in this sense: they generally admit to the personhood of the unborn, and then deny Fourteenth Amendment protection to those persons.
All officers of the United States, including those at both the federal and the state level, are sworn to protect innocent human life. The unalienable nature of innocent human life is the first principle upon which our Constitution, our free republic, and our liberty, is premised.
The Constitution can't possibly deprive the officers of the state it creates of the power to enforce its own stated purposes. This is nonsensical.
The violation of this first principle, the walking away from what our founding documents call the very purpose of human government, the ignoring of the heart and spirit of our Constitution, are the clear reason that our country is being destroyed.
"The Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation's destiny...the principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost." - Frederick Douglass