We've all seen the embarrassing Palin-Couric interview on Supreme Court decision -- singular -- with which Palin disagrees. That part is good for a pop quiz with non-lawyers on "how many Supreme Court decisions can you name?"
For the snarky among us, here's a video of Palin being interviewed on Alaskan TV expressing disappointment at the Supreme Court's last word on the Exxon Valdez spill, 6/25/08. She should have remembered that!
Palin 6/25/08
More important, though, is how she shredded the theoretical underpinnings of social conservatives' opposition to Roe v. Wade.
Very generally, the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution; for a recent example, it interpreted the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" clause (badly IMO). Roe followed Griswold v. Connecticut, which rejected a state law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to married persons. The right to bear arms can be found in black and white, but the Constitution never mentions abortion or contraceptives. The Court cited "penumbras, formed by emanations" of the Bill of Rights in Griswold. If that sounds fuzzy, it's because you are right. Roe was slightly better, citing the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."
Social conservatives were outraged. Roe was one of the most egregious examples of judicial activism. A judge who interprets the literal words of the law (here, the Constitution) is a "strict constructionist" and in the context of abortion litigation SC = SC, i.e., strict constructionist = social conservative. The due process clause does not mention "privacy." Allegedly one of the Supreme Court justices after Roe would showily read through the Constitution, snap the book closed, and announce, "Privacy? Huh. Don't see it in here." (At least, my Constitutional law professor had the same routine.)
And now, on national television, here is the woman who has energized the social conservative base with her right to life views:
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.
I'm waiting for the rightwingnut outrage.
I made this point on a couple of comments last night while we were all still reeling in shock.
I'm still waiting.
I thought it might be worth a diary.
Hello? Social conservatives? Are you out there? Aren't you outraged?
UPDATE: Most, but not all, of the replies I got pointed out, quite correctly IMO, that Palin simply doesn't know what she's talking about. I've been holding my nose and venturing into the cesspool of rightwing blogs on this issue, but there's nothing. Strict constructionism is a valid legal point of view. It's associated with the social conservatives on this issue, but on many others it supports liberals (example: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"). I tend to believe that the intelligent conservatives (both of them) are simply ignoring her babble.