Palin Recognizes Inherent Right To Privacy
This could be a right-wing tango from hell. Yesterday, CBS aired a "Vice Presidential Questions" series on the Supreme Court. Sarah Palin’s inability to name another SCOTUS case beyond Roe with which she disagrees has gotten press.
What flew mostly under the radar was this Palin pronouncement:
COURIC: Do you think there’s an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?
PALIN: I do. Yeah, I do.
Whoa, Nellie! Let’s go to Federalist Society godfather and arch-conservative Judge Robert Bork:
[Bork] continued to insist that the Court’s privacy decisions were illegitimate because the right to privacy was not in the Constitution. The Connecticut law banning the use of contraceptives, which the Court struck down on privacy grounds in 1965, was ”nutty,” Judge Bork said, but the Court’s remedy was worse. ”It comes out of nowhere and doesn’t have any rooting in the Constitution,” he said, maintaining that lacking such a rooting in text or the Framers’ intent, judges invite ”disastrous” consequences.
Nutty? Cue KLo:
She’s not going to lose pro-life support over this, but I suspect a lot of legal eagles on the Right have already called the McCain campaign …
Gee, ya think?!? Inherent privacy has been the cornerstone of wingnutty and pro-life vapors about SCOTUS for years. Must we now endure photo-ops a la foreign-leader-palooza, except with right-wing jurists and Sarah Palin in some icky, faux couture pink blazer? Oooops…
Well, guess that last "legal awesomeness by osmosis" confab with Judge Bork didn’t take. Hope the next one isn’t with conservative darling Ken Starr — because Palin’s "troopergate" counsel recently insulted him:
Our concern is that Hollis French turns into Ken Starr and uses public money to pursue a political vendetta rather than truly pursue an honest inquiry into an alleged ethics issue…
Way to shore up the base, Sarah — heckuva job! And I mean that!
(YouTube — Habanera a la Muppet.)