Transcription:
COURIC (to Palin): Why, in your view, is Roe v Wade a bad decision?Did you catch that? Not only does she have an embarrassingly limited understanding of the history of the Supreme Court but she clearly doesn't understand that the right to privacy is at the core of Roe v Wade.
PALIN: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government...mandated..mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm in that sense a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life, that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see further embraced by America.
COURIC (to Palin): Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?
PALIN: I do. Yeah, I do.
COURIC: the cornerstone of Roe v Wade
PALIN: I do. And I believe that...individual states can handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that.
COURIC: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?
PALIN: Well, let's see. There's..of course...in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are..those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know..going through the history of America, there would be others but..
COURIC: Can you think of any?
PALIN: Well, I could think of...of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today. [emphasis added]
It's simple. She obviously had no idea what she's talking about.
13 comments:
Oh, boy. Rick Santorum is freaking out!
...and ain't it SWEET!
Clyde
she have an embarrassingly limited understanding of the history of the Supreme Court
Based on the Supreme court decisions she disagrees with?
I had forgotten about this Supreme court decision that uses the same legal reasoning/theory as Roe v. Wade.
The justices say so.
Denial of Rehearing in Kennedy v. Louisiana
...the Supreme Court this morning issued an order denying the state of Louisiana’s petition for rehearing in Kennedy v. Louisiana, the wild ruling last June in which the Court held, by a 5-4 vote, that imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child violates the Eighth Amendment. Justice Scalia, joined by the Chief Justice, also voted against rehearing on the ground that the majority was just making it up anyway and didn’t really care about whether or not a national consensus existed against the death penalty for the crime of raping a child.
Also see
SCOTUS admits blunder on UCMJ, but says "Nevermind," and shows again how Obama's model judges pull constitutional law from thin air
"Not only does she have an embarrassingly limited understanding of the history of the Supreme Court" ...
Based on her inability to describe any other cases by name or in any other detail than Roe V Wade. I understand, Heir, that you have contempt for Journalists (you essentially called Gwen Ifill a whore) and for the Supreme Court.
This is part of why genuine debate over issues in this country is dying. Instead of listening respectfully to other opinions, conservatives call their opponents traitors. Now that the treason label has run out of steam, Obama is labeled a Muslim (see John K’s frequent use of Hussein), a communist, a radical African American, a pointy headed, Arugula eating professor type and a friend to (domestic) terrorists and corrupt businessmen. There’s no discussion of how much level of debt is good for the country, or the most efficient market techniques to control pollution (which will not be controlled by the free market alone), or whether widening income inequity is good or bad. The only policies conservative Republicans are willing to discuss are how much taxes on the rich to slash, and how many regulations to cancel. Already the conservatives have achieved a worthwhile goal of cancelling the American dream for millions of lower income citizens by simultaneously getting them thrown out of their homes and destroying their credit. If you can bring back slavery, I’m sure your decade will be complete.
Palin is just awful in that Couric interview.
John K: She has a misunderstanding? LOL LOL LOL Justice Sutter uses rulings from foreign countries to make his decisions. Lefty Supreme Court Justices have no understanding of the Constitution. Find abortion rights in the Constitution yet?
In a highly controlled environment as tonight's debate rules provide, Palin should do ok and not have any major gaffs. The unfortunate process will be that she will be pushed into a press conference in the coming two weeks and then BOOOM....its over.
The Palin pick is already impacting the down ticket candidates. The pick has destroyed the McCain campaign and will severely impact the down ticket this year.
"Justice Sutter?"
Man, I knew he had a great forkball, and an HoF career with the Cubs and Cards,...but I didn't know Bruce Sutter was a Justice, too!
I tend to agree no gaffe's (or gaffs) that anybody who is not familiar with politics will come out tonight. Since almost everyone who cares about politics plus a bunch more people will be watching tonight (I will tape it), I would guess maybe a third of the audience would catch Palin's flailing (or one of Biden's whoppers). The only way it would be obvious is if Gwenn Ifill did a Tim Russert and asked a rude follow up like "So you can't name or describe a single Supreme Court case other than Roe V Wade?". She wouldn't do that.
oh, but that would be so fun if she did!!!!
The range of outcome for Gov. Palin this evening seems
remarkably wide -- from (1) a variation of that great "Reagan Genuis" Saturday Night Live skit (Phil Hartman is outstanding -- it is available on the SNL website, and if you haven't seen it, check it out) in which she is revealed to be brilliant to (2) confirmation that the only difference between an Alaskan hockey mom and an especially dumb box of rocks is . . . you guessed it . . . lipstick.
I may head down to Mitchell's or out to Schenley Park to watch this one, because for entertainment value it promises to stack up nicely against any football game. She could erase completely those deer-in-headlight images of the past couple of weeks and give Sen. McCain a chance to climb back into the race, or she could disintegrate on live television and become a national punch line for thirty or forty years, or just about anything in between.
The West Wing couldn't top this drama.
My expectation: Somewhere between incapable and adequate (not so daft as she has appeared, but not credible as a vice presidential candidate).
John K: Also wondering, if all men are created equal...then how did the Supreme Court insert Affirmitive Action into the Constitution? And Palin does not know the Supreme Court.LOL LOL LMAO
Show me where school prayer is in the Constution, John.
Frankly, I don't have much respect for someone who doesn't even acknowledge one of the basic principles of American democracy.
You can hardly attack liberals for knowing nothing about the Constitution when you don't even believe in the Separation of Church and State, a fulcrum of our democracy. Read Jefferson's Virginia Statutes of Religious Freedom, Madison's commentary in the Federalist Papers or Adams' Religious freedom clause in the Massachusetts Constitution.
Let's just be perfectly honest here: Anyone who has ever taken a highschool course on American history should be able to list at least some of the following:
Marbury v. Madison
Dred Scot v. Sanford
Plessy v. Ferguson
US v. Nixon
Brown v. Board of Education
U. of California v. Bakkee
Miranda v. Arizona
Roe v. Wade
And if you're running for one of the highest offices in the land, you should definitely be able to talke about more than Roe v. Wade.
This conservative celebration of "know-nothingism" is frightening and probably a pretty good reason why they're losing so badly at this point.
Anyone who has ever taken a highschool course on American history should be able to list at least some of the following
It was Supreme court decisions she disagrees with.
Or in your view Brown v. Board of Education and Miranda v. Arizona should be overturned?
She could have named District of Columbia v. Heller which when it was being decided famed Constitutional law professor Barack Obama said he could not comment on the case because he had not read the briefs.
And no one will defend the Denial of Rehearing in Kennedy v. Louisiana.
The reasoning for decision (national consensus existed against the death penalty for the crime of raping a child.) turned out to be wrong. But the decision still stands.
Post a Comment