Posted on 04/19/2011 12:46:04 PM PDT by TN4Bush
Donald Trump appeared to stumble into a contradiction in an interview Tuesday – a misstep that could haunt the potential GOP presidential candidate amongst social conservatives.
In an interview with MSNBC, Trump was asked if he believed there was a right to privacy in the Constitution – a right that, while not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has said can be inferred from the text.
He responded, "I guess there is, I guess there is."
Then his tone of voice changed and he followed up with, "And why, just out of curiosity, why do you ask that question?"
When NBC's Savannah Guthrie wondered how that line of legal theory "squares" with his pro-life stance, Trump said, "Well, that's a pretty strange way of getting to pro-life. I mean, it's a very unique way of asking about pro-life. What does that have to do with privacy? How are you equating pro-life with privacy?"
To answer Trump's question, the United States Supreme Court equated the right to privacy as grounds to legalize abortion in its controversial 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at johnkingusa.blogs.cnn.com ...
Just how is that a stumble? Trump disagreed with the SCOTUS bogus and concocted justification for legalizing abortion. So what if he didn't immediately recognize that the "right to privacy" was the bogus excuse used by the court. He disagreed with it!
The constitution does imply and guarantee a right to privacy in several places (no unreasonable searches and seizures, religious freedom and others), but how many would stretch that to mean a right to kill a developing baby? Trump didn't.
I would agree we have a right to privacy. But the right to privacy does not give you the right to "privately" kill another human being.
“Didn’t Judge Ruth B Ginsberg admit that this decision stands on faulty or shaky legal ground?”
I don’t know anything about that, but I do know that Judge Ginsberg stands on shaky ground!
Exactly and thus my post above. Make these reporters address it directly. They like to ‘personalize’ the issues ala Alynski (sp?). We should turn it back on them ‘personally’ and see how long it takes them to stop the ambush journalism.
I want Allen West to run, and win!
Palin/West or West/Palin works for me ;)
I agree 100%.
The right to choose includes keeping your knees together.
Wait...they noticed a contradiction in an interview? And reported on it? Oh, wait. How foolish of me. They are trained to only notice contradictions in interviews when it's a Republican (or, in Trump's case an 'alleged' Republican).
Meanwhile, O'Blah-blah-blah is allowed to contradict himself daily on every issue without so much as a word from the press.
“phaseology”=”phraseology”
Something I once read by Margaret Sanger would seem to back you up 100%.
I can’t fathom why the MSM won’t report on it...
THAT WAS SPOT ON. An excellent answer by Trump. As if “privacy” trumps infanticide of innocents. How was that a “stumble”????? It was wonderful, unless I missed something.
“Meanwhile, O’Blah-blah-blah is allowed to contradict himself daily on every issue without so much as a word from the press.”
Yup, that is what makes the crap they spew so maddening!
A) There is a right to privacy, and it's in the Constitution. See the Fourth Amendment.
B) We would still have a right to privacy whether it was in the Constitution or not. Read the Ninth Amendment.
C) The right to life is the supreme right, and it trumps the right to privacy. You can't kill an innocent person just because you did it in private.
D) Roe was at its core not about privacy. It was about whether or not the fetus is a person.
-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."
” How are you equating pro-life with privacy? “ ==========
Lifesite headline is surprisingly incorrect.
To be honest, I have always thought of the abortion debate to be based on the issue of a person being able to make a personal choice, not an issue of privacy. If that’s not the way it was originally argued, then Trump and I both have it wrong.
That doesn’t mean that I support abortion. I don’t.
I’m not convinced Trump opposes it, but I’m not up to speed on each of his views.
Trying to blow this aspect of his comments out to be a huge mistake, seems rather silly to me. If he said he opposed abortion, it would take more than this to convince me otherwise.
It’s my guess that there’s plenty out there that would cause me to come to that conclusion (my impression only), but this sure wouldn’t reach that level.
I’d love to hear Col. West tell Obama “don’t try to blow sunshine up our butts”!
Buddy, you and me both ;)
West is so impressive from so many angles that he’s a natural for the job. Plus, the fact that he didn’t bow down to the witch hunters that ended his military career proves he puts honor and integrity over everything.
Of course, the left will call us all racists for voting for him... because white people would only do that because he’s black.(liberal logic)
...a misstep that could haunt the potential GOP presidential candidate amongst social conservatives....
&&&
Trump is not going to appeal to social conservatives anyway, idiot!
John King of CNN is just expressing his fervent hope. Anyone who bothers to read Trump's words will see that he expressed puzzlement over how anyone could tie a right to privacy to the abortion question. The only thing he revealed was that he hadn't studied Roe v. Wade, and would disagree with one of its key assumptions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.