Posted on 10/02/2008 8:04:30 AM PDT by disraeligears
Isn't any reversal, by any court, a tacit admission that it was wrong?
I looked it up; it’s 8th grade middle school social studies. They tend to teach Marbury, Brown vs Board Ed, Plessy v Ferguson. Kids’ stuff.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marbury+madison+social+studies+grade+curriculum
No. It’s a showing that the court has had a shakeup either in its justices or in their opinions. It does not and never has meant that its previous decision was per se wrong.
That may be. I watched her answer on SCOTUS cases, and she flubbed it. Direct hit by Couric.
She did great at her acceptance speech
Which is now ancient history. It was a fine speech.
and great when she was introduced by McCain.
Yup. That was a good speech too. It too is ancient history. Since then, she's wowed big crowds re-giving a composite of the two speeches. But in interviews, she hasn't been able to handle the hostile press.
The MSM is trying to make her look dumb because
At least on the SCOTUS question, they succeeded.
When she acts like herself she does great, and this will play to the people. Enough said.
Was she not acting like herself in the interview?
I agree with you. If Sarah can discuss SCOTUS decisions with some familiarity tonight, she will undue any damage there.
I think I know what you intended to say here, but would you care to revise the phrasing? As it stands, you are saying that your opinion is that the right to privacy does not justify the right to life of the unborn.
I think you mean to say that the right to privacy does not over-ride (what's the legal term?) the right to life of the unborn.
Or do I misunderstand?
Sarah needs to brush up on the Supreme Court decisions, but she is refreshingly NOT a lawyer.....I am SICK to death of them running for president.
Add the Dred Scott decision to the list of bad decisions and remind everyone that the US Supreme Court never overturned that decision. It was simply made moot by the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution.
No she wasn’t. She was trying to give answers that the ignorant campaign wanted her to give. Watch her at a stump speech and you will see her at her best.
Right. She doesn’t need to know the names of the cases, but she should know the nature of the major decisions.
Marbury, Dred Scott, Plessy, & the recent ones like Kilo and Hamdi.
| No he wasn't, but he had demonstrated for years a very deep understanding of government and its relationship to freedom. He understood the principles which informed the design the Framers' left us. And he demonstrated an almost unmatched ability to articulate those fundamental principles in a way people could understand.
Go back and read "The Speech": The Speech
Reagan wasn't even a governor yet when he gave that speech. Read the speech, then go watch Palin answer Couric about SCOTUS decisions, and then tell me if she's anywhere near the same league. She exhibited none of it.
Has she stumped on the subject of judges?
I agree with you that Gov. Palin could have been schooled on basic con law and Supreme Court decisions, but there are so many areas, not only of the law, but policy and governmental affairs that Katie would have found something that she did not know about and pummelled her on it.
Part of the problem with Couric’s question was that it was TOO broad. I am an attorney, and I didn’t have too much trouble coming up with cases (I would have said, among others, Lawrence vs Texas which reveresed Bowers vs Hardwick, as another case, like Roe, of the Court usurping state authority).
Anyway, that’s what attorney generals are for. I don’t imagine Biden will be asked about natural gas vs petroleum as the more efficient fuel, much less a follow up question on the matter.
You are correct, the basic right to privacy by the mother does not justify the deprivation of life (and thus all privacy rights) of the unborn child; a balancing test if you will, if you believe that we all have some right to privacy.
I looked it up; it’s 8th grade middle school social studies. They tend to teach Marbury, Brown vs Board Ed, Plessy v Ferguson. Kids’ stuff.
And honestly, I abhor many of the SCOTUS decisions, but if I had been asked out of the blue, I’d have struggled. Of course, Kelo (which didn’t occur to me in 24 hours after the issue arise until reading a freeper’s comment), and all the ones expanding the commerce clause (I could never remember case names in law school either), and the recent death penalty for child rape case. There are dozens more, but I just don’t catalog them for mental access, I’m afraid.
Oh, and the Michigan affirmative action case, and Bakke (they’re gradually coming back to me.)
No, and why should she. Has BO or Biden or McCain stumped on the issue of judicial opinions? Name the date and time. You can’t. She is being treated differently because she is a conservative woman.
lol. I'll say. Truth is, it's too late, she already got exposed on it. And it's sad that someone so close to the presidency would have so little to say about such a crucial subject.
but she is refreshingly NOT a lawyer.....I am SICK to death of them running for president.
I agree with you on that. I don't think lawyers make good executives. Their culture is not a good farm system for that kind of skill set. I don't mind if a person has a law degree. I've always thought it would be sort of fun to get one, if I had that kind of time and money on my hands, which I don't. But lawyers, who ply the trade? Oy.
It looks like you simply don’t like her rural American style. That’s your problem, not hers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.