I’ve broken this into another post both for reasons of length and because they’re not responses to my critics.

1) It is disconcerting that Palin could not come up with any other Supreme Court decisions with which she disagreed. Most Americans couldn’t do it, it’s true, but I would like to think that most Americans would expect their vice presidents to know more than they do.

2) I suggested, in my 4:37 p.m. post, that conservatives who say that the Constitution does not protect a generalized right to privacy and those who say that it does protect privacy often have the same underlying position but are using different language to describe that position. I have come to believe, however, that it is rhetorically wiser to take the Roberts/Alito approach and say that the Constitution protects privacy. I think it captures more of the truth about the Constitution; it is less likely to be misunderstood by laypeople; and it refuses a linguistic concession to the Left that it finds helpful. The whole point of all the privacy-and-the-Supreme-Court talk is to portray opponents of abortion as opponents of privacy. If we don’t think “privacy” means what they say it does, why should we speak as though we do?

3) I think Ross Douthat is quite right.