Palin On Supreme Court Cases: ???
Here it is, the much-hyped moment where Sarah Palin was unable to name any Supreme Court case that she disagreed with, other than Roe v. Wade:
Palin employs the same dodge here as she did when Katie Couric asked her what newspapers she reads -- she retreated to vague terms about how there are all those Supreme Court decisions out there that people might disagree with, just as she mentioned all those newspapers out there she relies on.
There is a certain irony here. John McCain has long criticized Barack Obama for speaking in platitudes, and then he went and picked a running mate who apparently can only think in platitudes.
Advertisement
WI + 9 Obama, Will the MSM stop saying its a swing state and move it to leaning Obama already?
October 1, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
RCP moved it tonite....MN will follow soon and we will be at 269.....!!!!!!!!!!!
October 1, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah and most of those that are listed as toss ups are favoring Obama, and he just needs 1 of them.
October 1, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO MAS
Please stop
October 1, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hard Kweshcuns UNFAIR!
DEMANDING A SARAH PALIN PRESS CONFERENCE: Sure, bring it on — right after Obama takes questions from Bob Owens, Stanley Kurtz, David Freddoso, the Powerline guys, and Hugh Hewitt on the Bill Ayers/Annenberg business.
You see, it's no fair letting vicious in-the-tank sharks like Katie Couric savage poor Bible Spice, unless right wing philosopher-princes like Confederate Yankee can harass Obama.
~
October 1, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bible Spice -
O god - you're killing me -
October 1, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bible Spice!!!!! Awesome.
October 1, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there is anyone on TPM who cannot answer this question or what they read in 30 seconds then they should not be contributing here. Couric tossed her puffballs and she flat out missed these and others.
October 1, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite court case was Kramer vs Kramer.
October 2, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. Thank you so much for finally giving us a really good nickname for Palin.
You have done a great service to our country.
October 2, 2008 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Katie Couric is doing the work of a patriot this week.
October 1, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, as much as she has disappointed me over the past few years, she really is doing the job, isn't she?
October 1, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear!
October 1, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Katie Couric is getting her ratings out of the tank and Palin is getting debate expectations so low that just showing up will win it for her. These interviews are about as real as reality shows and Americans are swallowing it, hook, line and sinker. A win/win situation for Couric and Palin.
I really resent CBS for playing with the future of this country for ratings and it tells me everything I need to know about the McCain campaign.
October 2, 2008 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully this is preview of the VP debate.
October 1, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This confirms what we've already know: she is a historically unserious, unprepared, uninformed threat to our country. Like Jack Cafferty, I've never seen anyone so pathetic nominated for one of the highest offices in the country. While George Bush seems to operate analytically on a middle school level, she is still a toddler. A toddler wandering around with a loaded shotgun.
Pufferfish
October 1, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her worst answers come as a result of follow-ups. Unless Biden asks for clarification--which he really can't do unless he wants to risk hanging himself--this is not at all how the debate will play out.
October 1, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right wingers don't mind her answer about Roe (they would object strongly to the admission of a right to privacy). Middle of the roadies will recognize that Biden understands the issue and knows how to explain it to the public.
October 1, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sir, may I have some more? Please Sir!!!
October 1, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
October 2, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again Katie gives her the simplest GED motherfucking question and she can't answer it.
Brown v. Board, Bush v. Gore, Plessy v. Ferguson. Is she really that dumb?
October 1, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh wait I just reread the question. It's court cases that she disagrees with.
Then again who knows? She's a Republican so Brown v Board might just be a suitable answer for the base.
October 1, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, Hamdi would have been a suitable answer for a republican to make. I obviously wouldn't agree with her, but again, like on the newspaper and magazine question, she is either too slow or too dumb to even think of an answer to spit out.
October 1, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 1, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the gimme on this answer is the recent Guantanimo decision--at least for many Republicans.
October 1, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Federalist Society types pretty much disagree with all the jurisprudence from the New Deal onward. They hate the expansion of federal power under the Commerce clause and most of the Warren Court 4th amendment stuff. She of course has no idea. Right of privacy, of course.
You can't just say statres should decide. You have to give a reasonthe Constitution gives the power to the states and not the Federal government. It's not a matter of preference.
Hell she didn't even say she's against "Legislating from the bench" That would have been pretty easy.
October 1, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
As was just pointed out on Olbermann, how about Exxon v. Baker? Came out in June '08, reduced the award for the worst oil spill in history, and was in ALASKA.
October 1, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a local official she should have heard of and had an opinion on Kelo. Of course she might not have disagreed with it, but the party line is that it was a bad decision.
October 1, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
She issued a press release criticizing the decision.
Or her office did in her name.
October 2, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
She even gave an interview to KTLA on Exxon v. Baker, on June 25. It's on Youtube...
October 2, 2008 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her first sentence says how disappointed she was in the ruling. Are you kidding me with this? She isn't quick enough on her feet to pull that out of her ass? You should post this video as a blog.
October 2, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Disappointed in the ruling?
She was 9 years old at the time. I wonder how should could remember that after "hearing (Biden's) speeches" when she was seven years old?
October 2, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dred Scott!!!! Geeeeeeez.
October 2, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
That Joe Biden guy is impressive.
October 1, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I posted this on the previous thread, but Jeffrey Toobin does a good job of saying what to expect from a McCain Supreme Court.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PS0BvkoVvA&feature=related
October 1, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the video. I'm totally depressed after seeing it.
Since McCain picked Palin a lot of people, myself included, have seen him as something of a joke. But this video is an important reminder that a John McCain presidency is no laughing matter.
Being for executing children, is just beyond the beyond.
October 1, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for passing on the link. Great reminder of what we're all working so hard for.
October 1, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that since Palin has gotten herself in trouble with previous specific remarks, her handlers have told her to avoid taking specific stances on issues, as much as possible.
They have warned her to not provide any more ammo to those foreign journalists from Gotchastan, which is a very dangerous place, since one can not watch it from Alaska. Yup! Yup!
October 1, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is worse than silence. It has always been my understanding that the right wing nuts, the very people Palin is supposed to attract, are absolutely against the notion of a right to privacy. She would have been better off getting up and walking off.
October 1, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. And she doesn't even know what she stepped it it seems. If there is an inherent right to privacy in the constitution, then pro-lifers lose one of their major legal arguments against Roe v Wade.
October 1, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is an inherent right to privacy in the US Constitution. The Ninth Amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
October 2, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's is the best part: that this demigoddess of the right wing, she whose intellect and judgment they've been talking up for weeks, has now declared that she recognizes a constitutional right to privacy. Guess that's settled!
October 1, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
wait. she believes in a right to privacy?? is that her final answer??
i'm confused. are there actually pro-lifers who support a right to privacy??
October 1, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, can you say "President Sarah Palin" and not feel really scared for America?
I can't.
October 1, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
spot on crouton.
I hadn't thought about those words strung together but it definitely gives me the heeby jeebies. It would be like having a less competent George bush in charge. Hard to get my head around that to be honest.
October 1, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word for word:
Couric: "Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?"
Palin (nodding): "I do. Yeah, I do."
Couric: "That's the cornerstone of Roe versus Wade."
Palin (ignores Couric): "I do, and I believe that, um, individual states can best handle what the people within, the different constituencies within the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in, in an issue like that."
Couric: (pauses, then moves on to another subject)
Uhh... ... What?
October 1, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should've mentioned this, but the key of this exchange is Palin's ignoring Couric. Palin obviously does not know on what grounds Roe v. Wade was decided. That's problematic. Extremely so. Though, to be fair, most conservatives I've met don't know the grounds on which Roe v. Wade was decided.
October 1, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nor does she truly understand the republican arguement as why they want abortion rights turned over to the states.
October 1, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another great point.
October 1, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just that you may WANT policy decided at the state level, but you have to be able to say the Constitution does not grant the power to the Federal Government. Commerce clause. 10th Amendment. 14th amendment liberty clause.
How can you defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic if you do not even know what the hell it says.
But she's just joe sixpack so how is she suppose to know that.
October 1, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
They just know that Roe is very bad, and that there are these bad activist judges out there that need to be replaced.
October 1, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed that about her answer too. She, like a majority of people, seem to be under the misconception that Roe v. Wade is about the legality of abortion. So after she prattles on about how she's pro-life and against abortion (I noticed her invocation of "States Rights", obviously something her handlers fed her) she then turns on a dime and directly contradicts herself by stating that she believes in a right to privacy -- which is actually what Roe V Wade was about. Here's hoping she keeps such "clarity" tomorrow night.
October 1, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's very problematic. One of the real issues I have with Palin's responses to such questions is that I never understand what she's actually trying to say. What her message is. It's never coherent. So she DOES believe in an inherent constitutional right to privacy... But Roe v. Wade was a mistake? How, pray tell, does that work?
October 1, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
How you get across a river has nothing to do with your right to privacy, dude.
October 1, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
LoL! Nice one, man. Ahahaha!
October 1, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the answer to your question is: "she doesn't have a message".
As others here have alluded to before, as I'm now finding myself starting to agree with, that she's nothing more than an ambitious, opportunist that'll say whatever she needs to to achieve her aims. The term "rudderless" comes immediately to mind.
October 1, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No wonder McCain called her his "soul mate".
October 1, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
On CNN, one of the pundits mentioned how she claimed she was a Federalist, but that she would be run out of any group of Federalists with an answer like that.
October 1, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I scoffed at that comment.
October 1, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
She isn't a Federalist...she's a Secessionist.
October 2, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
True. But I also know of quite a few who know that its based upon the right to privacy found in Griswald v. Connecticut, which is their ultimate objective.
October 1, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nor does she get that the Constitution by definition covers ALL the states... not just gives rights to people that they can then choose WITHIN their states! Oh, Lord!
October 1, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply