I agree with you if your goal is to bash Palin and label her as a clown, a tactic the Democrats have gotten away with in every campaign since the Dan Quayle days.

If that's not what you're doing, there's nothing here of any substance. The cheerleader was trying to discuss two disjointed topics at once. How do you respond to that? I can talk about abortion or I can talk about privacy. But you've got to be an irrational person or a Supreme Court justice to think the two are related.

The topics are not disjointed at all. Roe v. Wade was based on privacy.

Most Republicans do not believe there is a right to privacy. That is how they can pass laws like the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA.

Also, what is just as troubling is the fact that she can't name another SCOTUS decision she disagrees with. I can't fire off about 7 or 8 off the top of my head.

How can you not find this troubling?

Court cases I disagree with:
- Roe v. Wade: An issue that should be handled by the states.
- Miller v. United States: Has been used to ignore the Second Amendment.
- Texas v. White: SCOTUS ruled secession is unconstitutional.
- Kelo v. New London: Taking property for private development is not a justifable use of eminent domain.
- Korematsu v. United States: Continued the interment of Japanese Americans durig WWII.
- Buck v. Bell: SCOTUS ruled in favor of eugenics programs and the sterlization of Carrie Buck, because she was, in their view, mentally handicapped.
- McConnell v. FEC: SCOTUS upheld limits on political speech by upholding McCain-Feingold.
- Berman v. Parker: The same court that ruled on Brown v. BOE threw thousands of minorities, mostly African Americans, out of their homes to build a department store.
- Wickard v. Filburn: Upheld limits on crops via the Interstate Commerce Clase even though the crops weren't meant for interstate commerce.
- Gonzales v. Raich: Used ICC to overrule a California law legalizing medicinal marijuana.

I will give you that Roe v. Wade was based on privacy, but it was a stupid basis for the decision. Terminating the life of another is not a privacy issue.

I could rattle off a few SCOTUS cases too, but I'm not in front of a camera knowing that millions of people were watching, including thousands of left leaning media vultures analyzing every syllable of every word spoken. That is tough for some people and has very little to do with their ability to lead. If I were voting for a Jeopardy contestant, I would vote for someone else. I'm not.

I don't see an inconsistency between supporting privacy and rejecting Roe v. Wade. True, the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was nominally based on privacy, but their logic is so flawed, one should discount that rationale at the outset.

The privacy of one individual cannot trump the right of another individual to live: a correct understanding of the dual nature of Liberty-Responsiblity dictates that one's rights end where another's begins. The central issue in the abortion debate is, at what developmental point do we recognize an individual entity with inherent rights of their own? The abortionists essentially argue that the individual entity with rights does not exist until the moment of birth, while the anti-abortion crowd maintains that the individual entity with rights exists at some earlier point, some argue as early as conception. Let's get our heads on right about this debate and this critical distinction, and stop pretending that this is somehow a privacy issue: the Court has done the greater debate on this topic a tremendous disservice with this Red-Herring line of argumentation. Thinking people should know better - ESPECIALLY someone who claims to be a Libertarian and should evince a better understanding of the nature of Liberty than to resort to this idiotic false argument.

I don't support Roe. I already said that. The opinion is terrible and the case was wrongly decided.

I do believe that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution in the Fourth Amendment, which is why I oppose many of the Bush Administration's policies.

What I am saying is that Palin's position is different from the position of Bush and McCain and she made herself look very hypocritical. If she believes the Constitution contains a right to privacy, why should it be up to the states? I don't even care about the abortion issue. I just want to know why she believes constitutional right up to individual states.

I don't think that I've seen a presidential or vice-presidential candidate questioned like this before. Would be nice if they were.

I'm not sure Palin believes the right to privacy is up to the states. I think the context of the entire discussion was Roe v. Wade, so it's an incredibly confused issue from the outset. I believe she was referring to abortion as something that should be left to the states. What she should have done is ask the cheerleader to decide which topic she wanted to discuss...abortion or privacy.

Dutch,

It matters. Palin is running for VP. She would be president if something happened to McCain. I tend to expect more out of someone running for such a position.

If she were running for state senate or even re-election as Governor of Alaska, I would agree that it doesn't matter too much.

Policy matters and a basic knowledge of court cases that could effect policy matters. Again, I'm not saying she should be an encyclopedia of knowledge on Supreme Court cases, but I think she could only think of one she disagreed with, and an obvious one at that, is very, very troubling.

I am infinitely more troubled with the thought of having to live in a country damaged by 4 years of Obama/Biden.