Related Posts (on one page):
Violence against born women - Federal legislation! Violence against unborn women... meh
Though it is odd that she didn't at least mention the recent case over punitive damages that she's publicly criticized.
"Those are numbers which pre-date the McCain... [blah, blah, etc."]
Palin isn't a lawyer, and she should just confess that she doesn't have a list of case names committed to memory but would be happy to give her opinion on a particular issue (rather than just a case name).
ROBERTS: Senator, I do. The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.
ALITO: Senator, I do agree that the Constitution protects a right to privacy.
Oh, and also, as a snark—it might be worth pointing out that Palin doesn't much respect women's rights to be free from domestic violence on a state level, either, considering she has rejected funding for rape kits (because they contained "emergency contraception").
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
Since John McCain tapped the first-term governor to be his vice-presidential running mate, Palin's sky-high home-state approval ratings have come down to Earth.
Above 80 percent approval for parts of her term -- she was at 82 percent in a key local poll twice this year -- Palin's popularity has swooned as new information about the local abuse-of-power investigation known as Troopergate has trickled out, and as national and local media pick over her track record as a governor and small-town mayor.
. . . . Inside those numbers was a dramatic drop in support from Democrats and independents, although support from Republicans remained strong at 93 percent. Among Democrats, her approval rating dropped from 60 percent to 36 percent, a 24-point drop. Among independents, it fell from 82 percent to 64 percent, an 18-point drop.
Anyone else notice that Biden got Roe wrong? (etc.)
And the comparison to Bork is just plain silly. She's not being vetted for a position in which she'll actually be able to do anything about the decisions she dislikes.
She should get a pass on Bong Hits for Jesus - she likely agreed with that outcome.
I'm pretty sure the public won't blame her if she can't quote the holding in Korematsu. Good god.
Yes, js5, Palin could be president before the end of this December!
Well, Ramesh, that's probably because there is such a clause in the 14th Amendment:
There was an interesting post on Powerline earlier this week on how we live under a new form of government structure, not a democracy but a "mediated democracy" in which a small group of people (who are not "elite" by any traditional measure like intelligence or wealth) control the media, shape public opinion, and succeed in getting their candidates elected even when their policies in no way represent the views of the average American.
I guess part of what I mean is that the only executive experience she has claimed has been some examples of foreign policy that are really rather lame.
How about working with Canada to get a natural gas pipeline through there down to the Lower 48? How about working with private industries to help start the largest private infrastructure project in the United States?
How 'bout ethics reforms?...
How 'bout that line-item veto?
What we were allowed to see of the Gibosn interview was a travesty.
Expecting non-lawyers, even politicians who have to deal with issues colored by these landmark cases, to be able to recite legal cases is ridiculous.
How low is the bar, exactly?
I can't say the last 50 years or so have convinced me that electing elitists has done us a lot of good.
So it comes down to whether you want to be governed by your "betters", or by your neighbors. Since people who think they are your betters are psychologically unfit for the position, by definition, in my opinion, I'll choose neighbors almost every time.
If wife-beating is interstate commerce, then what would be an example of something that is not?
Carter - Georgia Tech/US Naval Academy
So one wonders about your criteria for deciding elitism. Just because a politician tries to portray a folksy exterior, doesn't mean they haven't had their card punched by the "elite" gatekeepers.
The power is more expansive now than it was when it was drafted, but that's at least plausibly a good thing.
If wife-beating is interstate commerce, then what would be an example of something that is not?
"Biden's an admitted lawyer who's taught law at University of Delware Law School."
Too bad Biden doesn't seem to understand that the Supreme Court is not about finding a consensus of what the American people feel. It's about interpreting the Constitution. The Supreme Court doesn't poll the people and then try to find a ruling most acceptable to the electorate.
Sheesh, dude, I started ignoring [Sullivan] years ago. When he peddled rumors that McCain lied about the cross in the dirt story and that Trig was actually Bristol Palin's secret daughter, it only confirmed it.
I'm willing to federalize the law if it bans abortion.
Question from the audience: My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom?
Biden: The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what ... against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.
Constitutionality of which issue? Murder laws? Last I checked, those are constitutional.
Obama wants to federalize abortion law with the Freedom of Choice act. So Obama apparently thinks it's ok to federalize abortion law. I'm fine with federalizing it also, as long as it's banned.
Many of us who oppose Obama do so because of his far-left/Socialist ideas, not for any other reason.
Many of us who oppose Obama do so because of his far-left/Socialist ideas
What exactly is YOUR critera, if a Dixie engineering school and a free government education is enough to be a punched-card elite?
Hint: the word "elite" suggests that a lot less than 50% of the population (preferably less than 5%) should meet the critera.
You are missing the code words. Elite = smart people.
Well, the "almost every time" saves it (almost), if your neighbors are the Snopeses
My, aren't we especially super-elite! You have such awesome high standards. /sarcasm off
Since I don't go around vetting my candidates based upon their "elite" index, I only need a defensive definition. And like Justice Potter, I know it when I see it. But when politicians want to take personal decision making (guns, money, land, sex, diet, purchasing decisions, risk, etc.) out of my hands and put it in to theirs, that's a good indicator.
I'd be curious to know your demographics, because it sounds like you've been raised in the a society steeped in political correctness.
1. The number one reason to have taxes is to raise revenue. Not to redistribute wealth. Once we have a tax, yes, it should be "fair", which of course is a term that is totally ambiguous and without much value. Because everyone has a different idea of what's fair.
2. Universal healthcare? You're joking, right? The only people that I know who want this are the ones who think they'll be the net beneficiaries of it. Which is a far cry from everybody. Classic socialism. BTW, since when is popularity an absolution for something being socialist?
3.Judicial nominees/empathy: I'd prefer they have NO empathy when they make their verdicts. I don't mind a bit of it in the sentencing phase... but remember that law is for all of us, not just the lower socioeconomic classes. And being poor isn't an excuse for being a criminal.
4. Universal Voluntary Public Service: An oxymoron if I ever heard one. It can be universal, or it can be voluntary, but it sure can't be both. This isn't a left/right thing, ... this is a freedom/fascism thing. Just try it with my kids, but you better bring a SWAT team.
Ruralcounsel, pardon us if we look a bit outside your circle of acquaintances.
There also are political and ideological aspects to views on universal health. Democrats favor it by more than 3-1, and liberals by 6-1, while Republicans and conservatives divide evenly.
Then you try to color every statist (whether right or left) position into an "elite" position.
You're not being merely inconsistent, you're being nonsensical.
3. Judicial nominees/empathy: If I understand you correctly, in a rape case, if the defendant attempts to suggest that the alleged victim is known to be a woman of easy virtue, we don't want a judge with empathy for the alleged victim who will draw a line and say that certain aspects of her private life are to be excluded from discussion at the trial?
Under current law, a single taxpayer in 2008 with an income above $32,550 will be in the 25% tax bracket. But someone making ten times as much will pay only 15% on capital gains. Many people who are not far left/socialists would agree that these two tax rates should be brought closer together, out of fairness to working people.
My point is that hers are not valid. I think that all of us could agree that if the constitution actually had an explicit provision forbidding states from interfering with a woman's right to have an abortion, states couldn't contradict that. Based on what Palin is suggesting, it would still be "state issue," which is plainly false.
UC San Diego Professor of Political Science Keith Poole, who has developed a mathematical algorithm for ranking all legislators in one liberal-to-conservative spectrum
"He is the only Senate member of the Congressional Black Caucus."
Anyone else want to take a shot at this one? Okay, I'll go. Maybe he's the only Senate member of the Congressional Black Caucus BECAUSE HE IS THE ONLY U.S. SENATOR WHO IS BLACK!
Wow. An algorithm! That convinces me! Why, I bet he even uses numbers and that higher math stuff. On one of those computer thingys.
And now it all becomes clear.
As far as I know, the penalties are the same when the victim is of "easy virtue" as not. The important issue is whether it was rape, and not just the fallout from a breakdown in negotiation about price.
"You speak with the elegant ignorance of a lawyer from a third-tier law school."
Barack Obama: ...[strike]hates America[/strike]...