Biden's comments were spoken by someone seeking the VP job, not con-law prof of the year. Doubtful that the public is up for a 30-second sound bite on the tortured history of Roe or the origins of the so-called constitutional right to privacy (which Palin apparently agrees with). The polls show that Americans generally support Roe as read by O'Connor's undue-burden test. Smart politics by Biden . . . and Palin . . . that's all.

It is an interesting question what a candidate should do when they do not know an answer. Bluffing will offend some, but others will be put off by the admission that you don't know. Compare Obama's "That's above my pay grade" answer, which he was criticised for (perhaps justly) - but what other short answers summarise his views.

As to Biden's answer being sufficient for a VP nominee's soundbite, shertaugh, I am of mixed opinion. A specialist will sometimes give an answer that is not strictly accurate but will make sense to a nonspecialist. That's a little shaky, but defensible. At least in my field, other specialists can tell when that is happening and don't fault the speaker. I don't get the impression that this is what Biden was doing. The transcript reveals no hints or caveats that suggest he knows more than he says. In fact, he seems to be stretching past the edges of what he solidly knows, repeating the ideas of others with undue certainty. That is the same game that Palin is playing, but at a higher level. My guess is that he thinks he really knows. I doubt Palin thinks that.

Which is more worrisome? Both.

I understand how hard it is to give Joe Biden the benefit of a charitable reading. I struggle against it also. However, my take from the start was that what Biden meant by "consensus" was actually a "compromise" that most people can live with. much like what josh and some other commenters have said. The words don't mean exactly the same thing, but in context that fits.

Good heavens. Criticize Biden all you want, but when all this Kalt man gets out of Palin's blunder is

Palin explained her opposition to Roe v. Wade (the 1973 Supreme Court decision that precluded states from banning abortion) on federalism grounds; that abortion is a matter that is best left at the state level.

then you're not doing analysis, you're being a party hack.

Hope for next week: Palin keeps her mouth shut, and the internet can return to normal.

Eyes on the prize here: It's Obama whose views count. Since he also taught constitutional law and is well versed in the issues, I can't imagine he's going to rely on Biden too heavily (other than how do we get someone through the nomination process).

Obama opposed John Roberts as the replacement for William Rehnquist when the Republicans still controlled the Senate.

Perhaps Roberts was a "stealth candidate" whose views weren't known well enough (which would be an ironic reason for Obama to vote against him), but his Senate testimony provided enough substance that I don't think anyone has been surprised by Roberts.

Assuming Obama wasn't just voting no just to look good to the base for his inevitable presidential run (a strong possibility), this says that Obama has a pretty far-left view of the nomination process and probably a far left view of the Constitution.

I find the Professor's criticism off the mark. First, as others note, it is Obama's views that matter the most.

Second, comparing Biden to Palin, you can criticize Biden for supporting Roe (if that is your view of the Constitution), but I don't see the evidence in this interview Biden he is not familiar with Casey, the "undue burden" test, etc. that developed in later years.

After all, Biden was present and questioned several nominees about these issues. Yes, maybe he should not have used the word "consensus" in describing Roe, when he likely meant that the current state of Roe, as modified by Casey et al (which allow greater state restrictions), may be a "compromise." current His inartful way of describing current abortion laws hardly means he does not understand these issues.

Biden's trimester description of Roe v Wade was never correct. Roe made abortion a constitutional right for the whole nine months.

Biden's trimester description of Roe v Wade was never correct. Roe made abortion a constitutional right for the whole nine months.

People keep saying that, but I don't know why.

The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").

Kalt, surprise, makes no sense here:

Biden continued by lauding Roe's complicated trimester formulation, either unaware or uninterested in the fact that it has long since been replaced by different approaches in subsequent cases.

Hm. Was the question not, as Kalt reports, "why he supported the decision in Roe"? If that's the question, then you discuss Roe.

But Biden's view of the Constitution leaves Congress with little limitation on its power other than the demands of cobbling together a political majority.

Welcome to the Marshall Court, Prof. Kalt.

So Palin went on Fox today, and surprise surprise, now she's come up with some decisions she disagrees with! Why, maybe she'd just forgotten because Couric was so mean or something.

GOV. SARAH PALIN: A recent one, Kennedy vs. Louisiana where the Supreme Court will tell a state that they cannot impose the death penalty even on repeat, rapists. A state's right or taken away by the supreme court and we will not be able to decide ourselves whether the death penalty could be implemented in that. I am certainly not a supporter of that decision. Also, eminent domain. That affects me as a governor and as a mayor as well. private property rights are so precious in this nation and for the Supreme Court to have sided with government, instead of the people, the property owners, that was frustrating. Another one personally affecting me, the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The oil company decimated Alaska's coastline and much of our fisheries and coastal communities livelihood, and they sided with Exxon on the punitive damage that was to be awarded. that was frustrating.

Oh, and she says she reads the New York Times and the Economist.

Link

Nunzio, I think both are just good politicians. Obama is cautious and played it safe, always looking for opportunities to move ahead. He tried taking on his own party (Bobby Rush), failed, and learned that he had to work the system and that being the traditional politician (while visually appearing an agent of change) was the path to success.

Palin, by contrast, had a sudden opportunity outside the party system that she could seize to move ahead. I don't really think that took great courage, she wasn't really risking anything she had. And when she got into a position of power, she didn't courageously disclaim earmarks or take any particularly unpopular positions of which I am aware.

The oil company decimated Alaska's coastline and much of our fisheries and coastal communities livelihood, and they sided with Exxon on the punitive damage that was to be awarded. that was frustrating.

If you favor massive punitive damages, Governor, why are you on a ticket that favors capping punitive damages?

Jeebus.

Kalt quotes Biden thus: "[Roe is] as close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours."

Kalt then complains this is "preposterous," because "[i]f Roe represented a consensus, it would not have been such a landmark case, and it would not have caused one of the biggest rifts in American politics in the intervening years."

Earth to Kalt -- Biden didn't say Roe "represented a consensus"; he said it was as close to as a consensus as can exist here. You just quoted him.

The rest of Kalt's points (omg! the phrase "private crime" isn't the right nomenclature for "local" or "state crime"!) are equally cheap. And Kalt, unlike Biden, had a choice about whether to hit "Publish."

One important thing about Obama: neither as a state senator nor as a U.S. Senator has he stood up to anyone in his own party on an important issue.

This is not true. Obama voted against the strong views of the Dem base when he flip-flopped and voted for the telecom immunity provisions of the revised FISA bill.

Whether that cuts in his favor I'll leave you to judge.

Michael Drake,
My points, perhaps made inartfully, was that the status quo before Roe represented a better consensus. That status quo--letting individual states sort through these issues and reach and re-reach legislative solutions--allowed for a closer fit than a one-size-fits-all judicial solution.

Anderson,
Sorry if I came across as a party hack to you in my account of the first part of Palin's answer as saying that she didn't like Roe on federalism grounds. But that's what she said: "I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas." Not the smoothest explanation--and followed by what I, in my "party hack" mode, called painfully awkward fumbling that she should not have attempted--but the federalism point seemed pretty clear to me.

However, he (says) he didn't support the telecom immunity provision but voted for the "imperfect bill" anyway because he supported it overall, which is a legitimate enough position and shows some willingness to compromise.

That's a phony excuse, as everyone knows. He knew, and we know, that he was voting against the wishes of the base and covering it with a polite fiction.

Now, if your view is that he has to take a public position against his supporters, then I suppose you're correct on the thinnest and most technical grounds. I don't really see it that way.

And, needless to say, I hardly consider this to be a point in Obama's favor.

I, for one, find it interesting that he is for the death penalty, against gay marriage, and for an individual's right to own a handgun in the home. Maybe "the base" is too these days.

On two of those issues -- gay marriage and death penalty -- Obama is more conservative than the Dem base. These are additional examples for you.

Biden said that he and Obama have a clear plan for winning in Afghanistan, getting out of Iraq, making peace between Israel and Palestine. dealing with nukes and Iran and solving the problem with Pakistan.

Forgive me, but does anyone know what these "clear plans" are?

I would be most interested in Israel and Palestine and preventing Iran from getting nukes, in particular.

Re Iran, what the hell have the Europeans been doing all these years with Iran? I thought they were going to walk softly and get Iran to see the light? What are he and Obama going to do that the Europeans haven't done already?

Did Biden forget that Arafat essentially told Clinton to take a flying leap after years of diplomacy? I thought he was supposed to know ever so much about foreign policy. Did he forget that one? Or did he forget that every President since Israel was established has not solved the problem of getting the Muslims to quit trying to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.?

Also, Biden got the idea that NATO should have gone into Lebanon and Hezbollah would not have taken over, from where? NATO? The same group who are Afghanistan but won't shoot?

And a pox on both their houses if either one of them sends our troops into Darfur. I know liberals love the US Military when they can send them off to die so that they can feel better about it all. I am appalled that Palin said that. I don't think I have heard McCain say that, however. Correct me if I am wrong, please.

The only thing the two sides have in common there is that, except for the odd celebrity and a few aid workers, they hate Americans. Our troops would be shot at from both sides. There is no infrastructure. And, the last thing we need to do is to invade another Muslim country especially when we have no national interest in doing so. Let the Europeans and the UN go do it. Also, the African troops have no desire to get involved so Biden better come up with another plan. I am quite certain that if we quit trying to solve the world's problems, they will start liking us a lot more, right? And, that seems to be a cornerstone of Obama's Presidency. We all want to be liked, don't we? Great foreign policy.

The key is, has he always been against gay marriage and the death penalty or are these recent conversions like his new found belief in the Second Amendment?

It wouldn't matter for purposes of this discussion. Nunzio claimed Obama had never taken a position contrary to his supporters. That's not true of him, and likely not true of any successful candidate ever -- virtually all successful candidates have to run to the center, and in doing so they take positions that their base dislikes.

<i>But that's what she said</i>

Yes, right *after* she said there's a Constitutional right to privacy and conceded -- Couric suggested it, and Palin let it slide -- that this was foundational to <i>Roe</i>.

Leaving the rest of us to wonder exactly how a *Constitutionally* protected right is to be "left to the states."

Maybe the U.S. should've left the enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment to the states too.

Point out Biden's errors all you want, but don't pretend that Palin gave a cogent answer, if you don't want to come off sounding like a hack.