Biden and Palin Discuss Roe v. Wade

CBS aired the Katie Couric interview of Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin on Roe v. Wade. The transcript is here.

Think Progress has this portion where they discussed Supreme Court cases and Palin wouldn't or couldn't name any. Transcript below:

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

Palin: Well, letís see. Thereís, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, thatís never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but Ö

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of, any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if Iím so privileged to serve, wouldnít be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

Also tonight, Palin and Biden discussed their views on the separation of church and state.
< Senate Bail Out Vote : Measure Passes, 74 to 25 | CBS Poll: Women and Palin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The more important (none / 0) (#1)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:20:00 PM EST
    part of this that blogs are catching on to.

    is that she does agree there is a constitutional right to privacy.

    which Marc Ambinder noted

    In her interview with Katie Couric, Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed a constitutional right to privacy, although, she said, "individual states can 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."

    She has no clue (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by klem4708 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:27:34 PM EST
    I don't think she supports a right to privacy. She just doesn't  understand what a right to privacy means in a legal sense with respect to the Constitution or with regard to Roe v. Wade. Because if she did, she would have answered differently.

    The McCain people will straighten her out, and we won't hear her say anything like that again.


    This is a "gotcha" question. . . (none / 0) (#6)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:35:26 PM EST
    for Republicans.  Of course, they must not answer "no" when asked if they support a fundamental right to privacy.  But many of their statist tendencies require the absence of such a right.

    I think she is channeling Roberts. (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:25:57 AM EST
    That's Bill Richardson level cluelessness (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:40:39 PM EST
    brilliant! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:46:11 PM EST
    Palin does not understand that (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:39:25 PM EST
    a federal constitutional right to privacy would mean the states do not get to choose for themselves.  She really does not understand what "federal" constitutional rights mean.

    Since states are choosing (none / 0) (#11)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:44:20 PM EST
    for themselves whether to really have Roe v. Wade (my state has it for only a corner of the state, and even then, there are few clinics left), she would be agreeing with the Supreme Court's reading of the right to privacy as quite restricted and almost meaningless for many women.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#17)
    by eric on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:01:24 PM EST
    here in Minnesota, Planned Parenthood is called Planned Parenthood of "Minnesota North Dakota and South Dakota".  It is so frightening over to the west that everything has moved over here.

    Roe v. Wade is accepted here, generally.  For one reason or another, the rural states and rural areas of states differ so much from urban areas on this.  There is a very nice clinic here in Minneapolis, really close to where I live, that is rarely picketed because, to be frank, most of the people walking by are openly hostile to protesters and support women, instead.


    But if you're young and in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:07:51 PM EST
    west of Madison -- as there are no clinics in Wisconsin west or north of it -- you can't ask anyone for a ride across the river to Minnesota.  Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner took care of that, making it illegal to provide transportation to underage girls for the purpose of an abortion.

    But good news!  In the report cards state by state on women's rights, Wisconsin moved up from an F to a D-.  Whoowhoo.


    I read a horror story about women's clinics (none / 0) (#38)
    by hairspray on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:41:11 AM EST
    in rural areas like the Dakotas.  Everyone in town knows everyone's business and if a Doc is doing abortions he will be picketed and harassed.  Even his children will be stalked in school and the fundies will make his/her life a living hell.  There is no where to get services in areas like that.  So if abortions are down it is partly because they have become unavailable.

    gotta love those fundamentalists (none / 0) (#41)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:48:59 AM EST
    they are so christian...

    wrong quote (none / 0) (#2)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:21:04 PM EST
    this is the money question
    Did she just endorse the constitutional underpinning that supports a myriad of precedents that conservatives have spent decades fighting?

    I hope Gwen asks (none / 0) (#5)
    by indy in sc on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:30:06 PM EST
    about this tomorrow because it is a major departure from conservative thinking if she meant what she said.  

    I bet Palin thinks that "privacy" (none / 0) (#10)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:41:40 PM EST
    means just that-privacy.  She is a literalist.  LOL

    Palin claims to acknowledge (none / 0) (#24)
    by litigatormom on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:17:46 PM EST
    that there is an inherent right to privacy protected by the U.S. Constitution.

    Yet, she also things that this constitutionally protected right should be subject to the whims of the voters in each state, so that they can "usher in their will" as to whether they will permit their citizens to enjoy these rights to their full extent.

    So, Ifill should ask Palin if she believes that states can vote to limit or override the establishment clause of the First Amendment so that states can lead prayer groups or speaking in tongues in school homerooms.

    Or whether she believes that, despite the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the voters of the respective states can usher in their will to limit the clause's application to African-Americans.

    Just sayin'.


    She pretty clearly is just out of her depth here (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:20:40 PM EST
    That isn't to say that she's stupid, she just don't know about this stuff.

    Thing is... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:25:55 PM EST
    ...Roe v Wade is basically defunct.

    It's a theoretical right, but in reality most of America's female population has no access to an abortion.

    I would not be surprised at all to see the ruling overturned in several years.


    The right to privacy goes well beyond Roe, (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:29:49 PM EST
    as any good Republican foot soldier can tell you.

    Really? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:45:58 PM EST
    No access?  Don't you think that's overstating it a bit?

    Really? No access?? (none / 0) (#31)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:09:59 PM EST
    Where the heck do you live???

    first things first (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:21:17 PM EST
    you have to pay for the pill proceedure here in the US.

    It's actually free in the UK, for instance.

    So there you go.  There's a finacial hurdle right from the start.


    Not being a lawyer and dealing with (none / 0) (#39)
    by hairspray on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:44:20 AM EST
    these issues as someone who has had this experience does seem unfair to deride her for that. It may be fun to poke fun at her because of this but I don't like the tone. It is another episode of "gotcha"

    Any candidate for national office (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:48:16 AM EST
    ought to know the basic constitutional controversies.

    It would be a scandal if my Congressman couldn't answer this question.


    awesome, does that mean (none / 0) (#34)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:11:09 AM EST
    she would work to end the War on Drugs, through McCain's presidency...

    it's about time...


    What is remarkable here (none / 0) (#4)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:28:53 PM EST
    is that a fanatical conservative cannot think of a few liberal victories in teh supreme court to rail against.

    Is she really that ideological? I think not.

    I can think of a few conservative wins that P*** me off no end. Gore v Bush for instance.

    What will be hard for Biden (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:45:53 PM EST
    will be how to deal with her nicely and not laugh at some of that syntax.:-)

    Biden in no position. . . (none / 0) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:48:12 PM EST
    to laugh at anyone's syntax!

    I just hope he can make it through the evening without saying he's there to "debase" Palin instead of "debate" her.


    lol (none / 0) (#16)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:51:51 PM EST
    A massive debate. I really hope he is on his best bahaviour.   Just let the Clueless Alaskan hang herself with her own rope as, Lenin would say.

    I hope this isn't a massive fake out. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:49:22 PM EST
    How could a Tory like her be that uninformed about what she hates?

    Surely half the identity of the average ( or below average) conservative must be hating stuff that the supreme court did.

    Brown V Board for instance.


    It's a different generation (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:01:55 PM EST
    Palin has no background in the sort of racial issues that have fueled the conservative movement over the last 40-50 years.  Partly because of her age, partly because of where she's from.

    That's odd though... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:12:53 PM EST
    ...because she's the darling of that movement. I'm not sure she's part of a new breed. It must be ignorance or her own group's Talking Points instead.

    I would say considering the way she (none / 0) (#42)
    by hairspray on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:51:18 AM EST
    came up through the ranks in a very backward area of the country noted for it libertarian and parochial ways, she simply reflects those characteristics.  She did not go to law school.  Remember how clueless Obama seemed in the early days and he did go to law school and theoretically taught a course in consittutional law?  It took him about a year to become the sure footed and confident speaker he is today. I think we are comparing apples and oranges here.  That doesn't mean she should be elected, but I really see the inherent bias here.

    Even if you have though (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:39:58 AM EST
    like the Red South, this generation has been brought up to be PROUD of and defend their ignorances in ways that will allow the continuation of the current Republican lunacy.

    What? (none / 0) (#25)
    by litigatormom on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:19:07 PM EST
    You mean that Sarah Palin approves of the Hamdan decision?

    I'd agree, but (none / 0) (#33)
    by JWeidner on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:57:30 PM EST
    you can see the fear in her eyes when she's asked these questions that she has no clue how to answer.  If she were setting herself up for a big win, I'd expect a little more confidence in her facial expressions when she's answering, but to me, she takes on the look of a deer caught in the headlights.  I think she's really this intellectually vacant, with almost NO curiousity about anything outside her narrow world view.

    Oh yeah, that's right, she reads all those unnamed newspapers so regularly.  She must have a very informed world view, amiright?  RIGHT?



    its Bush v Gore (none / 0) (#19)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:07:27 PM EST
    Plaintiff goes first.

    Gore was the injured party (none / 0) (#21)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:10:08 PM EST

    Molly, have you read any good books (none / 0) (#22)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:12:35 PM EST
    about the 2000 election? Do you know the best one, especially for a non-lawyer person?

    Toobin's The Nine is very interesting (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:30:21 AM EST
    and not larded with legalese.  I found it quite interesting to read.  

    Sorry I didn't get back to you last night (none / 0) (#46)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:25:36 AM EST
    I try to avoid revisiting the 2000 election. I am still angry.

    At the time I read The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President by Bugliosi. I don't claim it to be the best. But it is certainly readable. You can get a flavor for it from his essay in the nation None Dare Call It Treason .

    I have heard good things  about Toobin's book, but confess to not having read it.

    Not quite what you asked for, but I hope something worth while.

    OT but I would recommend people read Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made

    Warren was a very interesting man. Most people are not aware his father was murdered in the 1930's and the police beat a confession out of the murderer. Predictably the confession was ruled a violation of the 5th amendment and if I remember correctly the murderer went free. To me this makes Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)  all the more intriguing. His response to his father's murderer going free was to try to eliminate the 3rd degree.

    You can listen to the Miranda oral  argument here courtesy of your tax dollars.

    Miranda is a short opinion. If you have not read it, do so.  My constitutional law professor, who clerked for Warren, used to say all the great opinions are relatively short and to the point. To me, Warren's opinions were always clear and concise (Cf Frankfurter or Rhenquist)


    Clueless (none / 0) (#7)
    by eric on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:36:12 PM EST

    Ouch (none / 0) (#26)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:20:35 PM EST
    Someone on Countdown tonight described her as Bush in lipstick and high heels.  I think that's more accurate than even the speaker (Jim Moore?) intended.

    In Palin we have a candidate that drives lefties (like me) absolutely freaking nuts, and not in a good way.  We wind up wondering how in the world anyone could think she's even remotely qualified for the job, etc.  Yet the right-wing base (which most definitely does not include the winger pundits) just loves her, to our total amazement.

    I'm stumped as to how America became this polarized in our world views, even taking into account the highly segregating effects of talk radio and the Intertubes.  I'm convinced that this polarization will be the biggest single hurdle to dealing with a whole range of problems, from the current financial train wreck to global warming to peak oil to who knows what else happens in the coming years.

    a lot of the polarization (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:18:28 AM EST
    has to do with a large percentage of the United States population that still isn't willing to accept the seperation of church and state, and that this seperation entails that even though many of its populace might be christian that this fact does not make the US a christian country (as that would put us right in line with Iran and Saudi Arabia, instead of there counterpoint)

    Book on 2000 election (none / 0) (#43)
    by rhyta on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:17:38 AM EST
    I read Too Close to Call by Jeffrey Toobin, it really spelled out the coordinated effort the Repubs put into their case.  It is very thorough and reads like a novel.

    The definitve one is Vincent Bugliosi's  None Dare Call it Treason where he takes on the Supreme Court's actions and pulls no punches...

    I bet the debate will have more viewers than (none / 0) (#44)
    by thereyougo on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:24:56 AM EST

    I mean, some of us will be looking to see if we can tell if she tatooed her lips and some of us want to see if she's got style, if her colors match, etc.

    the guys will be looking to see her tight skirt and we'll be so pre-occupied with that we'll miss what she says and the hour will go fast.

    Meanwhile all Biden has to do is flash his toothy smile and make sure his hair plugs cover up the bald spot real nice.He's a handsome old chap. I do  want to hear his folksy take on foreign policy and I hope she doesn't say "me too" when they ask him first and its her turn.

    Ick (none / 0) (#45)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:18:06 AM EST
    There's that Biden grin.
    He is putting out there that in the third trimester, the state has the right to insist on the fetus "being carried". He knows he's saying something that strips a woman of her rights, so he grins as he says it.