August 2006 Weddings
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
My Palin Question
Primarily aimed at McCain/Palin supporters, but anyone can answer: Are you comfortable with Palin potentially appointing federal judges, even though she cannot name any Supreme Court decision other than Roe with which she disagrees? If so, why? Are you concerned about the disconnect between her saying the Constitution contains a right to privacy but believes Roe was a bad decision? What gives you confidence in her ability to appoint judges to the federal bench?
I'm going to bed soon, but I'll be back tomorrow. I expect you all to stay up until the wee hours crafting detailed, multi-paragraph responses.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Re: My Palin Question
It differs by state. Many (most?) states elect SC justices. IThey are elected in Texas, but I know civil and criminal are split. They are elected for 10-year terms in Wisconsin.
I am tired, so this is the Cliffs Notes version.
I am totally confident because for one, it will be McCain who will be selecting. You are asking the question under the dubious premise that McCain will die, which is an unfair premise if you take a look at actuarial tables. It is more logical to assume that he will live, not paint gloom and doom scenarios. I am more worried that the Dem candidate will live (thus being the most inexperienced, liberal president we have ever had) than the Rep candidate will die.
No, I have no problem with Palin refusing to say or not saying all the cases she dislikes. I am not interested in a "let's complain about settled law" navel-gazing session because it truly accomplishes nothing. I am less concerned with a pop quiz "name that case" than I am with conservative principles. I think this is a straw man argument... to liberals, no conservative should ever be allowed to ascend to the high court. (The left relies on the court to do what it can't get done at the ballot box.) It matters not whether Palin cites five cases, one, or none.
This BS Couric question is just a pretext. I seriously doubt that any liberal would be any more likely to say "Palin would be a great selector of judges" had she answered like JulieF and said, "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and abortion should be left to the states. Kelo v. New London, the eminent domain case, is a threat to our democracy because it is taking away private property for some amorphous "public good." "Plessy v. Ferguson was false because it was separate but equal. Some of the terrorism and affirmative action cases were wrongly decided Dred Scott v. Sandford was the worst case ever; Taney should be ashamed." She'd be condemned no matter what.
I would rather her be well-read on the Constitution and the principles and work of conservative thinkers like Reagan, Hayek, and Buckley. One does not have to be able to discuss the history of Supreme Court cases in this country to choose lawyers who will rule based on the constitution, not some personal whim, international law, or emanation of a penumbra.
I see no disconnect btw the right to privacy and saying Roe was wrong decided. I believe that people have a right to general privacy from the government, and I think that Roe was wrongly decided and should be left to the people to decide. I'd rather trust the states than nine lawyers in black robes muttering about an emanation of a penumbra. If we're talking about disconnect,
what about the inherent disconnect in the liberal bloc's saying "the stated right to bear arms does not exist" while making up a right to justify abortion?How can you ignore stated clauses that the Founders created...
("The People" in the second amendment refers to the general populace, not the militia, just as it refers to the general populace four or six other times in the Bill of Rights.)
It's past my bedtime. Goodnight.
My short answer (I'm not up for researched paragraphs tonight--sorry
)
In the event that Palin is the one appointing judges...nope, not worried at all. I think one of the great things about our government are the checks and balances set up, especially in the case of appointing judges. No President can appoint a judge without approval from the Legislative branch.
I also hope, and believe, that both McCain and Palin (well, and even Obama/Biden) will listen to advisors as well when choosing new SC judges. It's too big a decision for one person to make alone.
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
If Palin were to ever get in a position to nominate Supreme Court Justices, they would still have to be confirmed by the Senate.
I think she is smart enough to know the difference between her personal beliefs and the freedoms that are important to our country. She would probably nominate conservative justices which any Republican president would do. Conservative justices does not mean an automatic overturn of Roe v. Wade.
As for her saying Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, I heard her say it was something that states should decide on. There are many people who believe abortion is a state issue.
What I am having a hard time understanding is how she could agree that the Constitution contains a right to privacy but think that this is something the states should have power over. I just thought it showed a fundamental lack of understanding of the reasoning underpinning Roe, which is the very decision she wants overturned. All presidents look at what policies their appointees to the Court will uphold, but I worry that Palin doesn't have a grasp of legal reasoning beyond the policy itself.
As to Julie's point, I think it's very important to consider whether you are comfortable with either vice presidential candidate choosing federal judges. The Constitution only gives the VP two duties, and one of them is succeeding the president if necessary. Given that the next president will almost certainly appoint 1, probably appoint 2, and possibly appoint 3 supreme court justices, plus will certainly appoint numerous federal district and appellate judges, I think it's an important consideration.
I thought Biden's answer about naming a decision with which he disagreed was very good. By discussing the hearings he held on VAWA and the effect on interstate commerce, he showed that he understands what is necessary to make a statute consitutional and why he disagreed with the Court. I agree with him, and I think Morrison v. Olson (the case to which he was referring) was a terrible decision.
I just feel like the only thing we know about Palin regarding judges is that she opposes Roe v. Wade, but since she agreed that the Constitution contains a right of privacy, she doesn't even seem to be able to explain why. This worries me.
Why do you think this? Overturning Roe is essentially part of the GOP platform. I know you're a pro-choice Republican. What has Palin said or done to indicate that she would put her personal beliefs about abortion (and other issues) aside when choosing federal judges?