I hope you don't mind that I put down in words how wonderful life is now you're in the world!

I'd hit it. I would not vote for it though.

Good god she is dumb.

Why would Biden write an act causing violence against women?

1 = Pig Poo

7th Heaven!!!!!!

I thought she could at least mimic McCain's over the top criticism of Boumediene, knowing that she would get a two-fer in terms of criticizing the SCOTUS and once again confirming her parties stance on due process rights for detainees. I mean, she mentioned it in her address at the RNC, and I'm sure she wasn't just reading a pre-written speech and actually understood what she was talking about when she criticized Obama on this point. Right??

This debate should be good...The first one was kind of weak, but here both VPs have stated a clear goal to attack the other on almost every level possible...
Although stance should really be the key thing to look for...Sadly, just like this post, it appears the (media) winner will end up being the one who knows the most about every issue mentioned.

[choking back the bile]

She is a friggin idiot.

At least Biden appears to know that the commerce clause exists, even if he doesn't understand it. I can almost guarantee you that if you asked Palin if she knows the term she'd just stare at you blankly then say something about Alaska not being attached to other states.

Palin is TTT.

MysTTTal

The best thing either candidate could do in this debate is yield all their time to their opponent.

At least Biden appears to know that the commerce clause exists, even if he doesn't understand it. I can almost guarantee you that if you asked Palin if she knows the term she'd just stare at you blankly then say something about Alaska not being attached to other states.

I'd like to see a post on Biden discussing FDR on TV in 1929 talking about the Great Depression. If ATL is going to become yet another boring and predictable mouthpiece for the left-wing, I'm out.

Yeah she named one case, that's great.

Clearly her knowledge of past cases is far more relevant than where our economy is headed. Lawyers are TTT. Economists > Lawyers.

@5 = comic gold. GOLD!

I think its disingenuous to construe what Biden said as "disagrees when the Court tells him his laws are illegal." That decision was decided on the incredibly narrow ground that there was no jurisdictional hook, which Congress immediately added after the decision. Furthermore, Biden's argument has credence. Afterall, the Supreme Court plays fast and loose with "interstate commerce" whenever the hell it feels like coming down on one side or the other. Just look at the medical marijuana case (Gonzalez v. Reich I think). Anyway, his response had alot more credence and thoughtfulness than dumb-shit Palin's "i'm just a widdle gurl from alaska and we dun know nuttin bout that here" response. She has the speaking ability of a demon-spawn of Dan Quale, G.W. Bush, and that "such as, the Iraq" pageant girl.

Is that Palin picture above real?! When I first saw it I thought it was photoshopped. What kind of weird ass smile is that?

I'm not saying I wouldn't hit it (because I would), but goodness - what a butterface (mmmm butter).

J.P. Stevens is in the "can you frost this pane of glass" stage...
Have some respect.

An Economist Lawyer Trader= Kings among men

I used to think that Palin was unqualified because she is inexperienced. Now I think that Palin is unqualified because she's an idiot. Hooray, Democracy!

Wait - Paliln said there is a right to privacy in the Constitution but the states have the right to shape/enforce this right? Is that what she said? Or did I not hear her correctly?

Palin is right about two things:

1) Roe v Wade should be overturned because life begins at the moment of conception.

2) The voting public will never agree on certain issues, and since the voting public is expected to have the final say in all matters whatsoever, most SCOTUS cases involve issues that should have been decided at the state level, cf. Brown v. Board, Griswold v. Connecticut, Gideon v Wainwright, Engel v Vitale, etc... the list goes on and on and on.

Dear teh Sarah,

Repeat after me:

1. "I think Kelo v. New London was a disastrous decision, not only because of the unjust effect of the decision, but because of the Court's refusal to restrict the instances in which economic development can be held to be 'public use'."

2. "The Dred Scott decision was bad."

3. "Plessy was bad."

Love,

Bitter Republican

26 = Trig Palin

17: how is this post "left-wing"? he posted a video juxtaposing the two VP candidates' positions on roe and other supreme court opinions. you seem to have made some sort of judgment all on your own.

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. A legislator must act as his/her constituents wish or face failure at election time. The Court is supposed to be counter-majoritarian and interpret the law, not the mood of the people.

21: If that picture is real, she's got some nice cans working there. Obviously, she is therefore much more qualified than Cheney.

Wait - Paliln said there is a right to privacy in the Constitution but the states have the right to eliminate/curtail this right? Is that what she said? Or did I not hear her correctly?

26- The problem is that we don't live in a pure democracy, we live in a constitutional democracy. We can all vote and voice our desires all we want, but if a law or policy offends the US Constitution, no matter of popular support can overcome that, save a subsequent amendment to the document. Palin clearly does not understand that fundamental principal of civics in her response that there is a fundamental right to privacy, yet the states can unilaterally curtail that right through their piecemeal regulations.

Palin < 3rd Grade Social Studies Teacher

25,

You heard correctly. I almost shit myself when she said there was a right to privacy, even when Couric gently reminded her that that was Roe's basic holding. Too bad no one beyond lawyers will notice...

Dear teh Joe,

Nobody likes wife-beating, but it really isn't relevant to interstate commerce. Of course, neither is weed, but I digress.

Bitter Republican

Do you have to be so over-the-top biased even in the picture selection Ellie? For Biden, you've got a nicely done portrait. For Palin, a photoshop job, that would be unbecoming for somebody running for professional office. Lame, petty, framing, probably even more lame and petty than this complaint, but it's a close call.

30, you are absolutely correct, and therefore the issues underlying Roe v Wade should be decided at the state level, by voters.

AMIRITE !?!?!

36 = not-so-subtle troll.

People know it's not a photoshop job. No need to point that out to everyone.

Three words come to mind: "And the Iraq."

This post misrepresents the question Plain was asked, which was can you name two Supreme Court decisions that you DISAGREE with.

I am a litigator, not an appellate lawyer, but other than Plessy v. Ferguson I woud be pretty hard pressed to name one by case name.

Yea, there is that recent decision that held the death penalty for child rape is too cruel and unusual, but who can recall the parties names, on the spot?

25,

You heard correctly. I almost shit myself when she said there was a right to privacy, even when Couric gently reminded her that that was Roe's basic holding. Too bad no one beyond lawyers will notice...

She said that although she believes there is a right to privacy protected by the Constitution, there is no federal right to reproductive privacy that would otherwise protect a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. So what? She thinks it's a states' rights issue, and so do a lot of reasonable people (me not included).

25/34- the central holding of roe was not a right to privacy. it was that the right to privacy extends to a woman's right to unfettered access to abortions in the 1st trimester, limited in 2nd, more limited in 3rd.

if the right to privacy doesn't extend to abortion, then access to abortion would be regulated as a health safety issue.

40- Two points.

1) You are a terrible attorney if you can't name two SC cases you disagree with.

2) A candidate for national office should at an absolute bare minimum be capable of at least describing the holdings of a SC case that they disagreed with or could at least criticize. Repeating a nebulous answer in support of federalism is not an answer.

41: you almost shit yourself because of that? Really? You're an idiot. Please, please don't claim to be a lawyer. Her position, while clumsily explained, is the position of a lot of constitutional scholars. Go back to class.

She had never spent a second of her life thinking about whether there is, or is not, a right to privacy in the Constitution.

So, when she was asked the question, she simply chose the answer that sounded better ("yeah, privacy, that must be a good thing!"), without realizing that it would put her in a pickle.

can't wait till obama becomes pres and everyone is paying half their salary in taxes so obama can waste it on some ridiculous program that doesn't work

30,

To give Biden the benefit of the doubt, he wasn't asked why he thought Roe was correctly decided, but instead why he thought it was a good decision. He thinks it was a good decision because it provides a practical framework within which the competing interests of the mother and the state may be balanced, thus making it acceptable to the broadest possible swath of Americans...

40: you don't really need to name the parties to look knowledgeable, biden didn't name a case and he was fine. it's pretty clear from her answer she has absolutely no idea what the judiciary does and has paid absolutely no attention to any rulings its made besides roe.

and i call bullshit on the fact that you can't name one supreme court case you disagree with. you agree with korematsu? lawrence? roe? hamdi? dred scott? there's gotta be something in there that you disagree with.

as an aside it's also clear she doesn't understand the constitution (but that has been clear for a long time), i.e. the obama would rather read prisoners their rights than punish them or whatever she said.

43- Go back and re-read your Con Law outline, the entire holding is premised on the existence of the right to privacy as contained in the constitution. The right can be limited due to governmental interest, but the central holding is that a right to privacy does exist, allowing women the right to chose.

25, 32, 33

I don't see the problem here. When you make up a right that doesn't actually exist in the Constitution, like the Court did in Roe, why shouldn't you also be able violate Federalism and allow states to selectively enforce/regulate that right? I mean it's a living Constitution for crying out loud!

Elie are you seriously suggesting that the Biden answer is bad as the Palin answer?

43 - I didn't say that was Roe's holding -- I was just confirming that I understand her position. So I ask another earnest question: By admitting a right to privacy in the Constitution didn't she give the middle finger to all originalists? How will the Republicans spin this one? Don't Republicans cite a "right to privacy" as the classic example of legislating from the bench?

9,
Why would picking a "winner" based on which candidate has greater knowledge of the issues be a sad thing?

Palin's an idiot. Name "segregation" or something.

Biden's also an idiot. VAWA was reintroduced, reeancted, and still stands as good law. So, he dislikes a moot court decision. Whoopee.

You do realize that the US Supreme Court just issued the Exxon decision that took billions of dollars away from Alaska, right, Sarah? Don't you disagree with that decision.

But the slim notion she has on constitutional law is a biased one. She believes that SOME issues are best dealt with by the states and implies that others are not. Perhaps she's another Ashcroft. States get to decide abortion, but not whether or not to legalize drugs or how to punish pornography.

Someone ought to ask Sarah Palin if she believes that Americans have the right to marry across races (Loving) or if we have the right to contraception (Griswold). Neither right is spelled out on the Constitution and states have banned both when deciding the issue. That's why the Supreme Court had to take the ball away from the states and say, "That's enough now, Noah."

Marbury v. Madison - worst decision ever. Jefferson doesn't get enough grief for taking that one like a little b****.

25/34/41:

Palin's in good company, morons.

JOHN G. ROBERTS: Senator, I do. The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.

SAMUEL A. ALITO: Senator, I do agree that the Constitution protects a right to privacy.

Dear 30: Why don't you stand in for Biden at the debate. Preface every answer with "what Joe means is".

Dear 46: Believing in a right to privacy is not inconsistent with disagreeing with the bottom-line holding in Roe v. Wade--especially now that its fundamental underpinnings (fetus not viable outside womb during first trimester)--is no longer medically true.

PS: I am pro choice. But let's be fair in our criticisms.

Right on 27. She could have hit this one out of the ballpark by citing Kelo. Republicans and Democrats alike found that decision extremely hard to swallow. Also try Kennedy v. Louisiana. Boumediene, Rasul, and Hamdan would have been red meat for conservatives. Right to privacy in the Constitution but interpreted by the states? I despair...

Biden could have have thrown red meat at the Dems by saying Bush v. Gore. Only the lawyers would have really cared about the Commerce clause because we all had to read cases about milk and tire flaps. Plus, I was inclined to agree with SCOTUS on that one. Federal CC jurisdiction is a total mess now and it is a shame it was built on the back of civil rights cases. If he wanted to be controversial and stress foreign policy he could have said Medellin v. Texas.

53: There's nothing to spin. Even the most ardent originalist will concede there is a federally protected right to privacy. What they won't concede is that it extends as far as Congress decides or that it extends to, among other things, reproductive rights.

OK 44, what are your two?

No fair using Google.....

27 - You forgot Lockner. If she learned just this one decision, she could attack the Court in any number of ways and analogize to more recent decisions. Of course, that would mean she'd have to learn about those recent decisions, too.

59 - it's entirely possible that I am just waaay behind the times on scientific and medical issues, but has it really been shown that a fetus is viable outside the womb during the first trimester?

i'm a 1L and i want a job!!!

-nervous T-10 1L

All you people who try to substantively analyze what she said are as stupid as she is. She's an idiot on a national stage. she doesn't have a fucking clue what the question even means. She's just stringing words together that she thinks sound right to give effect to her emotion based ideology. SHE'S A DUMB ASS. Get it through your head

62/40 is a terrible, terrible litigator.

53: There's nothing to spin. Even the most ardent originalist will concede there is a federally protected right to privacy. What they won't concede is that it extends as far as Congress decides or that it extends to, among other things, reproductive rights.

Softball question. Dred Scott and Plessy. Palin may be Governor, but I went to Junior High School.

62/40 is a terrible, terrible litigator.

42, she said all that? Because I just watched the video and all I heard was

"The fed gov't shouldn't provide a mandate on such an important issue"

A "culture of life is important to this country" which she "would like to see further embraced in America"

"individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that"

And when asked if she could cite any specific cases she disagreed with, she displayed her central skill, which is taking 1,000 words to say "No, I don't know anything about that"

To Bitter Republican,

Sarah Palin couldn't oppose Kelo because she used eminent domain to build her hockey rink. Of course, she broke ground before signing the paperwork so the state had to pay extra, but the point remains: she has seized private property before.

Dismayed American

McCain/Palin = TTT and/or EPIC FAIL

This post is an example of Elie bending over backwards to appear unbiased.

It is a mark of the radical differences in quality between the VP candidates that conservatives still think that it makes Palin look bad and that liberals are calling her out for creating a false equivalence.

Yes, there is a weighty substantive and legal debate to be had here.

No, Sarah Palin cannot contribute in any way to that debate because she is too effing stupid to form lucid sentences.

Let's get back to the real issue: Barack Obama is a half-breed muslin:

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2008/9/10/obama_sign_in_yard_stirs_up_neighbors.html

I don't know about the rest of you, but I prefer my textiles to be pure-bred.

Wait until even Bill Clinton chimes in at the end... what you won't see in the mainstream media...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

31, don't sell Cheney short. He's got awesome cans.

There is nothing Palin can say that will make me think she is in any way less qualified than Obama/Biden. There is nothing lower than completely unqualified/borderline insane.

I like how this has become a nice debate thread for Roe v. Wade, which is more than my Con Law professor allowed us to have in class (I'm serious, he was afraid of controversial debate...???), but can we go back to talking about how Biden's understanding of the Commerce Clause is fleeting at best? You can't just come up with attenuated ways in which violence against women relates to interstate commerce and have Congress write up a 100 page volume on that and attach it to the bill. That doesn't make it any less attenuated. You want the Constitution to cover things like this? Amend it.

I'm not a big J. Thomas fan, but the dripping disdain in his CC dissents is directed exactly at people like Biden.

"We want to take money."

- Joe Biden

Wait until even Bill Clinton chimes in at the end... what you won't see in the mainstream media...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

The garden variety criticism of Biden is "I don't like his policies."

The garden variety criticism of Palin is "She's a fucking redneck moron."

I'm going to agree with Penn Gillette, the Democrats are definitely the party of hate.

59, you are so totally right.

A first-trimester fetus will weigh 1/8 of an ounce.. he can spend 7 months in an incubator and then die immediately after being removed from it. Witness the miracle of life!

Pro-choice? Somehow I doubt it.

80 - You are forgetting that Biden held 1000 HOURS of hearings on the subject. Where does he find the time?

"You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

- Joe Biden

85 - Biden is a hardworking man. I'll give him that. He really is one of the most dedicated senators out there. Still.

Is Roe even controlling anymore? I thought Casey overturned the trimester framework, and the law of the land is now the "undue burden" standard.

83.. both criticisms are perfectly legitimate. What does "party of hate" mean?

Since when did Roe v. Wade become a decision that the American people have a consensus on? Isn't that case what the whole culture war of the last 35 years has boiled down to? Biden has just redefined the term consensus to mean split 50/50.

83, the garden variety criticism of McCain is "I don't like his policies." The garden variety criticism of Palin is that she is a moron because, well... think about it.

Also, Palin is the worst federalist ever. Good G-d.

81/86 = Loser

I'm just going to put this out there--I disagreed with Bush v. Gore.

I wish Elie would at least TRY to be unbiased. As 36 points out, look at the photos Elie is using between Biden and Palin.

Hell, look at the photos Elie uses when he talks about McCain and Obama. Obama has a professional headshot; McCain looks like he is imitating Popeye.

McCain:
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/09/northwestern_isnt_the_only_law.php

Obama:
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/09/birds_that_look_like_law_profe.php

90,

"not a consensue but the closest thing to a consensus that we're going to reach" is not QUITE exactly the same thing as a consensus. Moron.

So Obama is #2 in more ways than one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

I wish Elie would at least TRY to be unbiased. As 36 points out, look at the photos Elie is using between Biden and Palin.

Hell, look at the photos Elie uses when he talks about McCain and Obama. Obama has a professional headshot; McCain looks like he is imitating Popeye.

McCain:
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/09/northwestern_isnt_the_only_law.php

Obama:
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/09/birds_that_look_like_law_profe.php

I'm sorry...I thought I went to ATL. I must have mistakenly typed in moveon.org

THE MCCAIN PIC IS LAT'S CHOICE

Keep looking for things to whinge about

How is ATL biased for failing to make Palin look like she's competent? That's just about impossible.

Violence Against Women? Not enough. Thre are 5 million battered women, but I'm still eatin' mine plain.

Man, Biden really nailed the holding of Roe v. Wade. He certainly appears to know his SCOTUS rulings.

Just curious if he ever heard of that one case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or was he too busy beating women?

Man, Biden really nailed the holding of Roe v. Wade. He certainly appears to know his SCOTUS rulings.

Just curious if he ever heard of that one case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or was he too busy beating women?

89: It's pretty common for Democrats to think that Republicans are evil and knowingly seek out ways to harm America and her citizens. It's pretty rare to hear a Democrat say that he disagrees with Republican policies, but could understand how a thoughtful, intelligent person might support them.

There are of course plenty of Republicans who think the Democrats are knowingly out to do evil, but they tend to be more on the fringe. The hateful Democrats are far more mainstream.

Of course, I may be biased since I'm living in a very blue state, so I encounter a lot more Democrats, and Republicans here tend to keep their views to themselves. But, I was raised in a very red state, and I don't recall seeing the type of hate towards Democrats that the Dems up here have towards Republicans.

How come the governor of Alaska can't muster an opinion regarding Exxon v. Baker?

Sarah Palin is too stupid to be the Vice President.

Bush v. Gore is an easy name to remember. Maybe she'll go with that one when confronted with this question again.

105, that's very much a matter of perception. And, I'm confident that everyone feels that his or her party is more reasonable and understanding about the other side than the side.

(108 again) *than the other side is.

105 - I hate you. People from your home state are stupid.

MysTTTal - stick to eating. You're actually good at that and it does not cause the rest of us to suffer quite so much.

108: I'm a Democrat. I like the party, but can't stand the voters.

-105

Biden's answer on the violence against women act was great, not for it's constitutional importance, but as a vehical for him to discuss his empathy for women voters. An elected politician's goal in discussing the judiciary is to advance their own issues, not to parse precedent. In that respect, Biden succeeded and Palin failed - she didn't throw any red meat or advance her own positions (e.g., Exxon punis case).

"At least Biden appears to know that the commerce clause exists."

____________________________________

How do we know he didn't steal that sound-bite from someone else's law review article?

good lord she is a retard

12:13 - the problem is that most americans are stupid so they will vote for one of their own

KaTTTie Couric.

Elie,

Wow, you've enlightened us all by pointing out that Palin is not a lawyer. Good job! Now go try to find some 5 year olds you can make fun of that, also, are not aware of American caselaw

114 - even if he did, at least he thought to look at a law review article.

Hawaii Pacific University + North Idaho College + University of Idaho + Matanuska-Susitna College + University of Idaho = TTT + TTT + TTT + TTT + TTT = Sarah Palin = EPIC FAIL!!!

118 - are you comparing Palin to a 5 year old? That actually makes sense.

"There's less than one percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than four of five percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with."

- Joe Biden

50- go back and read the opinion, not your outline.

"In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra."

***

"We, therefore, CONCLUDE THAT THE RIGHT OF PERSONAL PRIVACY INCLUDES THE ABORTION DECISION, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. "

121, that probably came out the wrong way. No, I am not comparing her to a 5 year old. I think Palin is very bright, but her real strength is her personality, commitment and hard work. Ronald Regan, who is probably one of the best presidents in our history, was not exactly an intellect. I was pointing out Elie's terrible (and biased) selection in stories to report. Why should we expect Palin to know the history of all these cases??? She clearly knows about Roe v. Wade and more seminal cases. But Elie's coverage of the elections, from day one, has been 100% biased! Elie represents the problem with our media - that is, there is no neutral reporting. Yes Elie, we realize you support Obama, but enough already!!! I'm SURE you have lost many readers as a result of your opinions. This isn't a political blog!

#120, University of Idaho demi-troll, needs to be schooled in the art of subtle trolling.

124, what "all these cases" is anyone demanding that Palin know about. She knew about absolutely zero besides Roe v. Wade.

We should expect Palin to know more because she's running for VP.

I thought for sure she'd talk about Daubert and/or Khumo.