Palin and Biden Spar, But (Mostly) Leave the Law Aside

[WSJ_law_blog]

Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., right, listens to Republican vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, make a point during their debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 2, 2008. (AP/Don Emmert)

According to both the NYT and the WSJ, Sarah Palin was “folksy” last night. (Seriously, the adjective — meaning familiar in manner or style — appears in the lead of both news accounts.) And while Palin did throw off a few heck-of-a-lots, the media seems to agree that she held her own and that Joe Biden did a good job of remaining composed and avoiding direct attacks.

While we felt that the moderator, Gwen Ifill, could’ve pressed the candidates a bit harder with her questions, we enjoyed the sparring, even if the debate left the Law Blog feeling a bit unloved. We know that Iraq, and economic and energy policy are important, but what about the courts? Judges? The rule of law? Mention of these topics was sparse.

On bankruptcy — and energy?

When asked about bankruptcy law and mortgage-holders, Biden — after explaining away the fact the he and Barack Obama voted differently on the last bankruptcy bill — said, “we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you’re paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe . . . That would keep people in their homes, actually help banks by keeping it from going under. But John McCain, as I understand it — I’m not sure of this, but I believe John McCain and the governor don’t support that.”

Then Ifill turned to Palin and asked, “is that so?”

“That is not so,” Palin said, “but because that’s just a quick answer, I want to talk about, again, my record on energy versus your ticket’s energy ticket, also.”

Biden’s battle against Bork:

For the final question of the night, Ifill asked the veep candidates to think of a single issue in which they “were forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances.”

Biden spoke about how his views on SCOTUS nominees changed over the years. “When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer,” he began, “I was of the view . . . that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee . . . had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was — had been a good student.”

He continued: “[i]t took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference. . . . That’s why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don’t like and the American people wouldn’t like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties. . . .And that’s why I was the first chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is. . .”

When it was Palin’s turn, she said she might’ve “quasi-caved” on some budget issues, but that, “on the major principle things, no, there hasn’t been something that I’ve had to compromise on, because we’ve always seemed to find a way to work together.”

LB Readers, what do you think? Any issues (legal or otherwise) that you wish the candidates had addressed?