Those excerpts from Couric's interviews give me more concerns about Biden than Palin. He seems to be under the impression that there's a "liberty clause" in the Fourteenth Amendment[.]
Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution:
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]
And yes, courts do in fact refer to it as the "liberty clause" too (just a sampling):
McGhee v. Draper, 639 F.2d 639, 643 (10th Cir. 1981) (“In order to justify relief under [the] liberty clause of the 14th amendment…”).
Brady v. Dill, 187 F.3d 104, 119 (1st Cir. 1999) (“The quoted paragraph announces two linked propositions of constitutional law[:] (1) The "liberty" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.…”).
Davidson v. O’Lone, 752 F.2d 817, 839 (3d Cir. 1984) (“That mode of analysis would enable the state legislatures to deprive the life and liberty clauses of the fourteenth amendment of any real meaning.…”).
Mazaleski v. Treusdell, 562 F.2d 701, 712 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (“In one of its most recent decisions delimiting the scope of the liberty clause of the fourteenth amendment…”).
Manlove v. Town of Hymera, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14722, at *9-10 (S.D. Ind.) (“This is just the sort of intimate life decision that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause.”)
Ross v. Pa. State Univ., 445 F. Supp. 147, 154-55 (M.D. Pa. 1978) (“[this] does not constitute the kind of injury to reputation entitled to be protected by the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”).
UPDATE: Ed Kilgore has more on Ponnuru's uncharacteristically sloppy post.