General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGOP debate: Mitt Romney grows foggy on contraception
I was struck by this major display of ignorance by Romney when he showed no knowledge or understanding of the landmark Griswold vs Connecticut case. Additionally, it was another example of Romney dodging questions since he didn't want to give a straight answer.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-mitt-romney-grows-foggy-on-contraception-question-20120107,0,3685593.story
I am asking you, do you believe states have that right or not?
Romney seemed perplexed, and annoyed: George, I dont know whether the state has the right to ban contraception. No state wants to. The idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do is kind of a silly thing, I think.
At that point, as the audience applauded, things got a little strained.
You went to Harvard Law School, admonished Stephanopoulos. You know very well
Has the Supreme Court decided that the states do not have the right to ban contraception? asked Romney.
Yes, they have, replied Stephanopoulos. 1965. Griswold vs Connecticut.
Romney seemed frustrated.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,683 posts)That's first-year con law stuff. Everybody reads Griswold; it's one of the landmark cases interpreting the 14th Amendment as creating a right to privacy, and it was the basis for Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas. How can you be a guy with a law degree from Harvard, and running for President, and not know this???
elleng
(130,895 posts)His non-answer completely obliterated 'fact' of his law degree.
mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)He just didn't want to answer. see my other posts in this thread.
elleng
(130,895 posts)I meant, obliterated in MY mind. If you're correct, reconfirms conclusion of how unsuited for role of POTUS he is.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)well to the Repuke Yahoo base.
Since Roe v. Wade rests on the 'right to privacy' established in Griswold, if you say that there's no right to privacy (as Santorum does), you're not simply overturning Roe but also Griswold. Romney missed an opportunity to dispose of Santorum for all practical purposes by failing to expose the reductio ad absurdum of Santorum's position.
elleng
(130,895 posts)Santorum at least mentioned 'penumbra.' These were real and serious issues in the past, and surely could be discussed today.
IMAGINE how PrezO would discuss it???!!!
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I never know what game he's playing. Was he unfamiliar with Griswold or was he unsure whether he was supposed to be familiar or unfamiliar with it?
If he was familiar with it then he would have to have an opinion of it...
And so on.
mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)he didnt want to answer the question.
Either way he loses votes. Pro Griswold he loses conservatives, anti Griswold he loses mainstream voters.
He clearly was avoiding answering the question.
elleng
(130,895 posts)Tired? Clearly not capable of taking on the huge task of POTUS, if couldn't address this reasonably.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)the link to the "Mitt Romney Trips On Contraception Question" video is
posted within the OP here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10175382
Blue Owl
(50,356 posts)n/t
jenmito
(37,326 posts)mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)he understood the question.
He didn't want to answer, because if he said he agreed with Griswold that would hurt him with conservatives.
But if he said he opposes Griswold that would create a huge contorversy ("Romney thinks states can ban birth control" that would hurt him with mainstream voters.
so he just ducked the question.
This is something he needs to be asked over and over. He needs to be forced to answer the question: Do you think Griswold v Conn should be overturned?
elleng
(130,895 posts)and if he fails even to do that, we can clearly call him "CHICKEN."
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)going to happen unless NARAL and Planned Parenthood Federation come out fighting and I don't see any evidence of that so far. Perhaps this will embolden them. I hope so...