• Sharebar

Mitt Romney was asked about the right of states to ban contraceptives in last night's debate and although he has a law degree, couldn't give an answer to one of the most important supreme court rulings in history. He then had to defer to the only constitutionalist on the stage, Ron Paul.

The WSO Advantage - Investment Banking

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation + Learn More.

IB Interview Prep Pack

30,000+ sold & REAL questions Learn More.

Resume Help from Actual IB Pros

Land More IB Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Perfect IB Mentor

Realistic IB Mock Interviews. Learn More.

Comments (17)

  • mfoste1's picture

    I laughed my ass off when he so eloquently choose to defer the question to Ron Paul because he had no clue how answer it. Its like he was saying "Ron, help me out here pal"

  • blastoise's picture

    shit i don't even kno the constitution other than it's an excuse to blow shit up with fireworks

  • Virginia Tech 4ever's picture

    That question was entirely irrelevant. No state is going to ban contraceptives. It's like asking if states can ban Diet Coke. It was a useless question that served absolutely no purpose.

  • In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
    Brady4MVP's picture

    Virginia Tech 4ever:
    That question was entirely irrelevant. No state is going to ban contraceptives. It's like asking if states can ban Diet Coke. It was a useless question that served absolutely no purpose.

    I agree. The question was totally irrelevant. The liberal hacks at ABC News chose to obsess over contraceptives and gay marriage rather than focus on the economy and bloated government spending. Diane Sawyer really needs to stop moderating these debates; she's only embarrassing herself.

    This morning's meet the press/facebook debate was much more substantive.

  • Pike's picture

    Thats a tough break.

    XX

  • JeffSkilling's picture

    Lol virgininatech4ever and brady think question on states rights and constitution is irrelevant because their boy Romney was exposed. Regardless of relevance, shouldn't he have been able to answer a fundamental question on states rights? Also, Santorum keeps talking about banning contraceptives so yeah, It kind of is relevant.

  • In reply to blastoise
    JeffSkilling's picture

    blastoise:
    shit i don't even kno the constitution other than it's an excuse to blow shit up with fireworks

    I think you got it backwards bud

  • Virginia Tech 4ever's picture

    And Ron Paul keeps talking about dissolving the Federal Reserve. It would have been an equally moronic and worthless question had Romney been asked about Congress potentially eliminating the Federal Reserve in 2013. It's not going to happen. The moderator was trying to ask gotcha questions. No state in the union is even remotely considering the question of banning contraceptives or Diet Coke. The question served no purpose and it got the answer it deserved.

  • RagnarDanneskjold's picture

    I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death. -George Carlin

  • In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
    JeffSkilling's picture

    Virginia Tech 4ever:
    And Ron Paul keeps talking about dissolving the Federal Reserve. It would have been an equally moronic and worthless question had Romney been asked about Congress potentially eliminating the Federal Reserve in 2013. It's not going to happen. The moderator was trying to ask gotcha questions. No state in the union is even remotely considering the question of banning contraceptives or Diet Coke. The question served no purpose and it got the answer it deserved.

    I'd be embarrassed too if my candidate didn't know basic constitutional law.

  • Virginia Tech 4ever's picture

    You're either an absolute moron, incredibly dense, you have an agenda or a combination of all 3. The purpose of the question was to get Romney to say something that would offend key voting blocs. They wanted Romney to say 1) states have the right to ban contraception, which would make for a nice Obama political ad taken out context in October, or 2) say that states don't have the right, thus labeling Romney pro-abortion/pro-choice/against states rights, which would make for a nice Santormum/Gingrich/Paul/Perry political ad in January. Anyone with basic intelligence can see that the question was a gotcha question, not a substantative question. If you want to ask Romney a substantative question about states rights, talk about Obamacare, Romneycare, the 2nd Amendment or even Roe v. Wade, but to ask a question about states banning contraception is simply a gotcha question because there isn't a state in the union seriously considering the question.

  • seabird's picture

    JS and mfoste, you guys are joking, right? Mitt graduated cum laude from HLS - he probably knows exactly what hes talking about. The big issue to take away from that debate was the utter hostility of Stephanopolis when he was posing questions to the candidates - telling Mitt that his unnamed sources found his statistics on the number of jobs he created when leading Bain to be inaccurate (Mitt just slapped him back by telling George that he was in fact sure of his numbers), as well as with this one.

    Abortion rights are not an issue that are relevant to the executive branch. Those insipid rulings in Griswold v Conn and PP v Casey (which really replaced the criteria put down in Roe v Wade, and which is similarly full of crap) make it irrelevant for POTUS to have to even considre the issue unless theyre gonna be nominating a SCOTUS justice, and only to the extent that justices would be replaced to the extent that they could repeal either Griswold or Casey.

    That would be a tough angle to pull off, given that even Scalia has stated that he wouldnt overturn Casey, and presumably Griswold - so the question really is moot. The question was made for political reasons to put Romney and the other presumably pro lifers in a bad light, even though the constitution was never written with the intention of disallowing individual states from being able to regulate abortions - given that they had been illegal since the founding in every state - silly question really.

    "...all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

    - Schopenhauer

  • pingafrita's picture

    I actually thought about this the other day... that is whether or not Romney knows enough about the constitution to possibly one day swear to protect it. Needless to say, I think this is a pretty big fkin deal.

  • JeffSkilling's picture

    To unlock this content for free, please login / register below.

    Connecting helps us build a vibrant community. We'll never share your info without your permission. Sign up with email or if you are already a member, login here Bonus: Also get 6 free financial modeling lessons for free ($200+ value) when you register!
  • shonglish's picture