A Supreme Question

Phillygirl64,

You wrote:

"how about Brown v. Board of Ed...or Bush v. Gore?"

Again, why would Palin disagree with either of them? That's the point I tried to make, it was a lot more complicated question than it seemed.

In other words, that question is almost like an essay question on a test that even knowledgeable people would want a few minutes to think over. Someone of a legal background would probably be prepared to answer it without a moment's delay, but to expect even knowledgeable people to without even a second or two of delay, as TV interviews require, is unreasonable.

I’m sure that Palin’s answer had more to do with the circumstances than anything else. As if she’s never heard of any other cases. Biden had an easier time with the question being a lawyer and longtime Washington politician, and he had a ready answer in a case that involved himself. It wasn’t even a high-profile case, but one that personally involved him. I know I’m familiar with a lot of court cases, but I’m really not sure under all the pressure and liberal “prosecution by media” that’s she faced, that I wouldn’t have had a brain-freeze either. It’s such a broad question invoking all of American history and it’s asking her not only to choose a decision by name but one she opposes (which eliminates a famous case such as, "Brown vs. the Board of Education") and argue the case in sound-bites right there. It’s a good question to spring cold on a lawyer or constitutional or judicial scholar, but it's actually a lot to process even for knowledgeable people, and again, even Biden with all the legal and government background didn’t jump into all those big, landmark Supreme Court decisions that have liberals and Democrats outraged. He had many of them to choose from, and it would have made more sense to pick one of these cases for their impact on America, but doing so would have been much more of a challenge than the personal approach he took. Rather than try to deal with a can of worms on the spot, he himself took the comfortable way out.

And, again, Biden hasn’t been savaged by a media who wants to destroy his image. Just take a look at Couric’s interview last week with him, “Behind The Scenes With Joe Biden, CBS News Anchor Katie Couric Spends The Day With The Democratic VP Nominee.” Take a look at Couric’s comments/questions. Here’s part of it: “Relating to the fears of working-class Americans is one of Biden's strong suits, as he did before union members in Akron, Ohio. That's something that comes easily for this son of a car salesman from Scranton, Pa. ‘What was it about what he said that really resonated with you?’ Couric asked some members of the audience.” We’ve got the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crisis going on, but nothing hard-hitting about it, and no questions about how fair it is to blame Republicans when the Democrats are clearly involved in the mess (see, for example, Slate’s informative “Fannie Mae and the Vast Bipartisan Conspiracy”). It is really a scandal that for the sake of their candidate, the mainstream media has withheld so many of the facts about this crisis, particularly given its scale and the importance of actually diagnosing and fixing the problems.

Also look at Charlie Gibson’s interview with Palin (“EXCERPTS: Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin”). ABC and Gibson twisted the facts, and the media has twisted the interview. Palin never said that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy experience, especially in that “you can see Russia from here.” If the media cared about the truth, they’d want to be fair on the whole thing, but they evidently don’t care. Gibson himself asked, “Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia,” and “What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?” Palin also tried to explain that her remark on seeing Russia from Alaska: “Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia.” Alaska’s proximity to Russia really does matter, just as being close to Canada, Mexico and Cuba does. Canada has recently felt threatened by Russia. And, she did talk about Russia outside of the Alaska angle.

And look in the Gibson interview at his claim that she said to ministry students about the Iraq war that “our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God," and that “there is a plan and it is God's plan." At one point Palin said she didn’t think those were her exact words, but Gibson insisted that they were. They weren’t. This is what she actually said: “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” She was seeking God’s guidance for our country through prayer, just as she tried to tell Gibson, as the transcript shows.

There’s good reason why Palin feels the media is against her - it is. From the claims of her not knowing what the VP does and her lying about selling the governor’s jet on eBay, to her cutting funds for teen moms and special education, the media has intentionally distorted the truth and misinformed the public.

David - how about Brown v. Board of Ed...or Bush v. Gore? Even if we don't know the names of the cases, we know the rulings

Palin makes Bush and Quayle look like geniuses

When is the last time anyone really heard an honest answer from any politician. Just look at the Bailout, Meet the Press, or any interview they don’t have the questions in advance.
Maybe a non answer is better than a lie.

I agree with Paige. How could she give such a ridiculous reply and expect to be taken seriously? People, this was an interview to HELP us get to know her. Palin was asked a SIMPLE question (actually many SIMPLE questions that anyone with half a brain could have HONESTLY answered easily) "Are there any Supreme court decisions in which you disagree?" I don't understand how anyone can defend (with such passion, no less) her reply. It insults ALL of our intelligence. WE THE PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER THAN THAT! Republican supporters, stop being so defensive, you know in your heart you wish she could have given and INTELLIGENT (not rambling BS) to that questions. I don't want her on my payroll! I call on Palin to do what the GOP campaign is promoting, put country first, step down, you are NOT qualified!

"Roe v Wade has nothing to do with Privacy!

It has to do with does a Woman have the right to play God and decide whether a living being should live or die!"
****************

You haven't read the case, have you? Because that case establishes the law of the land, and that law says otherwise. The foundation of the rationale of Roe v. Wade is the fundamental right to privacy established in Griswold v. Connecticut. That fundamental right of privacy implicates a right protected by the Due Process clause of the 5th/14th Amendments of the Constitution.
Thus, in order to overturn Roe v. Wade, you have to undermine its cornerstone: the fundamental right to privacy. But Palin doesn't do that: she's proposing quite a feat of mental gymnastics, arguing that the right to privacy established in Griswold is sound, but that Roe v. Wade should be overturned on the basis of "federalism" i.e., states should decide for themselves. Unfortunately, for the states to be able to do that, they'd have to find a way to draft a law that overcomes the strict scrutiny standard (law must be a necessary means to a compelling end) that is applicable when a fundamental right is involved. States have been trying to do that for 20 years now, and have been able to chip away at the holding (see Planned Parenthood v. Casey) but can't draft laws that would ban all abortions in a way that survives constitutional scrutiny.

"Only lawyers and legal activists are going to remember the names of Supreme Court cases. We have two lawyers on the Dem ticket and no lawyers on the Rep ticket."
-----
A good reason to vote for the Republicans."

Just yesterday you told us you were a John Edwards supporter.

Today you are saying not having a lawyer on the ticket is a good reason to vote for Republicans.

Roe v Wade has nothing to do with Privacy!

It has to do with does a Woman have the right to play God and decide whether a living being should live or die!

HP Boston: Instead of just reposting your comment, perhaps you could share with us your sources for that information. To protect your comment against deletion, you don't have to include URLs, just state the author and date of the source - where you obtained that information so we can read more about the conduct you're alleging.
Providing citation improves your arguments by allowing others access to the same source of information, allowing readers to independently verify the data, ultimately giving your arguments more credibility when a reader sees that you've cited to accurate information.

"A right to privacy doesn't mean you can do whatever, kill whoever you want."

You're right, John. I don't see anywhere where anyone has made that argument.

Also, for those of you wondering where Obama and Biden's "pop quizzes" are, check the news from the last year; unlike Palin, they haven't been hiding from the media.

In response to Belle Starr's comment below regarding not having lawyers on the Republican ticket, yes lawyer bashing is fun. It's also intellectually easy. What would be more challenging for you is to justify how your candidates, charged with enforcing the laws of this nation, have enough knowledge and understanding of how those laws work to be able to fulfill their constitutional duties.

And for those of you who keep raising the spectre of some "Obama scandal", supposedly warrants FEC investigation, your arguments might gain more traction if you can point toward some actual evidence of this, instead of just repeating talking points shoveled at you by Drudge. You are smart people: think for yourselves, and find support for your arguments.

A right to privacy doesn't mean you can do whatever, kill whoever you want.

Pop quiz? Pop quiz?
Why is it unfair to expect the people we entrust with our nation's government to be knowledgeable about the elements necessary to run it? If McCain dies and she becomes POTUS, she could be in the position of appointing members of the judiciary. While we don't expect the average "joe six pack" to have bothered to actually read the Roe v. Wade decision, I don't think it's asking too much for the leaders of our country to have read it before forming their own opinion about the decision. Had she read the opinion, she wouldn't have answered the "privacy" question the way she did.
"Joe six pack" Americans are a valuable part of the fabric of our country. However, we want our leaders to know more than we do: saying that we should hold a politician to the knowledge of the average Joe, rather than individual educated about law and government is a ludicrous argument which endangers our national and economic security. The interview above is yet another example of this candidate not being able to demonstrate basic knowledge necessary to govern. This is putting country last, not country first, and betrays the level of brash, irresponsible decisionmaking that McCain would demonstrate as POTUS. Palin supporters: You should be ashamed from tolerating this from your nominee and demand he replace her with someone more qualified.

The acceptance of this bald ignorance makes me fear for our country. She's not interviewing for a job as a sales associate. She's running for the second most powerful job in the world.
Anyone who took an eighth grade civics class ought to at least know
1- Brown v. Board of Ed.
2- Plessy v. Ferguson
3- Dred Scott

Let alone GORE v. BUSH.

ANYONE!!!????

I personally could not name any supreme court cases, I know some basic rulings but truthfully, I don't need to know them but my next vp most certainly does.

"Only lawyers and legal activists are going to remember the names of Supreme Court cases. We have two lawyers on the Dem ticket and no lawyers on the Rep ticket."
-----
A good reason to vote for the Republicans.

Ifull is definitely NOT IMPARTIAL.

I could care less about who she is. This is about electing a President. This is NOT about her this is about hundred million people wanting a fair and honest election.

IFILL is definitely biased. That is the definition of bias. She is biased. She has a favorite to be elected President. She will sell more books if Obama is elected. it is simple money.

She should step down and recuse herself. This is important for the reputation of PBS. She should not politicize PBS. I am shocked that PBS will allow her to moderate with her book coming out. Jim Lehrer has worked for some 30 years to make a neutral PBS News. Ifill can mess that up in 90 minutes. The public needs to feel the debate is beyond reproach.

One word comes to mind when I hear or read Palin's responses:

Incoherence.

Why is FEC Keeping Lid on OBAMA SCANDAL?

It looks as if Senator Obama may have received MORE THAN $200 MILLION in illegal donations including millions overseas campaign donations. Four times during the last three months an FEC Auditor has asked his bosses to start an investigation into Senator Obama’s illegal campaign donations such as this one

Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” etc.