Walking Contradiction

UPDATE: I've been told my line on Palin, Roe, and privacy is too strong, but I remain skeptical. Roe is founded on Griswold which is founded on the right to privacy. I don't see how you can be for one without granting the other.

In the Supreme Court interview Sarah Palin says three things of note: 1) that she is a federalist; 2) that she does not agree with Roe v. Wade; 3) that there is an inherent right to privacy protected by the Constitution.

There is no political philosophy that encompasses these three positions. They are self-contradictory.

To wit:

Federalists do not believe in an inherent right to privacy protected by the Constitution. Federalists are concerned solely with enumerated rights (all else is left to the states). Privacy is not an enumerated right.

The legal basis for Roe v. Wade is the right to privacy. You cannot be against Roe v. Wade while agreeing that the Constitution protects the right to privacy. It makes no sense. It's like being against the existence of stars while agreeing there is a sun.

Finally, the Republican platform since Roe v. Wade has in large part been cast against the right to privacy being protected by the Constitution. In stating that she believes there is such a right she's bucking her own party's platform. How will that play to the base?

Wednesday, October 1, 2008