01 October 2008

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah

I'm just gonna squint my eyes realll tight when I vote for McCain so his is the only name I can read when I pull the lever.

Sarah Palin was recently interviewed by professional hairdo Katie Couric and was asked, inter alia, about Roe v. Wade:

Couric: Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

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. 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 an issue like that.

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

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's 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 …

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 I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

I'll give a pass on not being able to verbalize clearly her views on inherent, un-enumerated constitutional rights and that the states are the arbiters of what "privacy" is. This a question most people would need to ponder and chew on for some time to be able to answer succinctly. The problem is that if you give these candidates essay questions you can be sure as shootin' they ain't gonna be the ones answering them.

But on the "other cases" question, her answer is not acceptable. You're a federalist, eh? You were recently a mayor and are now a governor? You're familiar, of course, with eminent domain?


She was campaigning for governor when the decision was handed down. This (absolutely horrible) decision affects every town, burg, township, city, borough, hamlet and state in the frickin' Union! It speaks directly to liberty and property rights and judicial activism and caused not a little uproar when it was handed down. John Street knew about it for Christ's sake!

OK, maybe knowing the case name off the top of your head is asking too much, but even saying, "You know, the one where they took the lady's house to develop condos? And called it "public use?"...that one?" Ending your declarative statements with that little lilt of a question at the end? Since you don't really know what you're talking about? You know?

And the pap about no consensus on Supreme Court opinions in the "great history of America." She talks like the third-string on a small high school forensics team.

Why doesn't this dreadful performance make me switch my vote?

Because Biden's answer, while seemingly more informed, was worse. Just because you can introduce 1000 hours of testimony into the legislative record saying that something might affect interstate commerce doesn't make it so. Not every distasteful act is a federal offense. In fact, based on the limited scope of (designed) federal authority, there should really be scant few federal offenses. And Senators shouldn't be larding up the congressional record and the federal court system trying to invent new ones.
Further, his statement that Roe is a good decision becuase it is "as close to consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours[,]" is simply stunning in it's stupidity. We've reached consensus on this issue? Democratic societies reach consensus via the courts? I thought that was done through the legislatures. It is not the role of the judge to assume the responsibility of building a consensus for society. I will digress on Roe more later.

And because Palin's devolution into Quayle II doesn't bode as ill as Barack's dedication to the further expansion of the federal government and the attendant loss of liberty that entails.

Maybe I'll vote for Barr after all. I'm going to a Libertarian event at the National Constitution Center tomorrow night. Maybe that'll convince me to waste my vote.

No comments: