Originally Posted By: whomod
Palin was asked about Roe V Wade and she said she thought it was a state matter. Then Couric asked her about if she thinks the right to privacy is in the Constitution. And she replied in the affirmative. Then Couric had to tell her that that pretty much is the cornerstone of Roe V Wade.

Seriously, this woman is a complete moron.


The fact that one acknowledges a right does not mean that one has to agree with every court decision based on the claimed right.

For example, the right to Free Speech is clearly enunciated in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Few would argue it doesn't exist.

However, over the years there have been court cases based on that right with which not everyone agrees. For example, campaign finance reform.

The same could be said for most other constitutional rights. Reasonable people can recognize a right but disagree on how the courts apply that right.

Accordingly, there is nothing particularly controversial, or ignorant, of Palin (or anyone else) acknowelding a privacy right but disagreeing with decisions interpreting it. In fact, such disagreements are often more common than not even among constitutional scholars and legal professionals.