Posted on 10/02/2008 8:04:30 AM PDT by disraeligears
If Palin is asked again about Supreme Court Decisions, she should state that she agrees with:
Marbury v Madision (stating that the Supreme Court's province is judicial review, that is to interpret the law; which would give her a platform to state that this is what the Supreme Court is thus strictly limited thereby and is not empowered to "make law");
Brown v Board of Education (argued by Thurgood Marshall, Esq., the Court held that "separate but equal" did not pass constitutional muster); and
that she found abhorent, and without proper basis to what is in the Constitution or in her heart:
Plessy v Ferguson (upholding segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine), and
Roe v Wade (because even if there is a right to privacy, as most may agree, that right does not justify the privacy rights and sheer right to life of an unborn child).
As evidence by Plessy v Ferguson, the Supreme Court gets it wrong from time to time, and definitely got it wrong with Roe v Wade.
Enough said.
This is something of a gotcha question in the first place since every damn person the Dems put up for President or VP is a LAWYER.
So they are generally conversant with the law which is why candidates are routinely expected to know the specifics of Supreme Court proceedings in far greater detail than they would on other subjects.
The Dred Scott decision would have sent Katie into an area where she had no knowledge.
And Joe Biden and B. Obama answered the Couric question by saying,...?
I think tonights debate is going to be Ifel vs Palin.
Biden is irrelevant.
Ifel is going to be the obama surrogate.
Ifel thinks she is smarter and better than small town palin.
Ifel is one of the effete elites who are smarter than flyover america.
Palin has to be better than eifel.
Biden might as well just go home.
Exactly, and see my replies to Huck. She was not picked to be the country’s new Justice or the Attorney General. She is being treated much differently than the others. I like her common side.
I also agree, Retired Greyhound and tioga..
She doesn’t have to be a machine stuffed with all the right answers which she can spit out on demand just to create an image for all the watchdogs.
She is intelligent, she’s articulate, she’s got a lot of moxie, and she knows who she is. That’s going to be good enough.
Couric came at her with an agenda and it was evident.
How is it that we expect automated perfection from her, but can pass over the gaffibilities of both Obama and Biden?
Oh gee, I don't know, because one day she might become president? Because she'll be the #2 executive in our government? I'm disappointed in her answer, and I think Couric's motives are pretty obvious, but I have to admit I learned something about Palin from her answer. She is not knowledgeable about the SCOTUS. That's too bad. I'd like to think someone going for VP would know more about it.
Has BO or Biden or McCain stumped on the issue of judicial opinions?
BO and McCain both answered questions on the subject at the Saddleback Forum. Obama gave the standard complaint about Scalia/Thomas--fine, he put it on the table. McCain spoke about strict construction.
I don't know if Biden's been asked, but I believe he serves/served on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think we've all seen him in action, questioning SCOTUS nominees, from Clarence Thomas to Samuel Alito. We know where he stands.
Name the date and time. You can’t.
Bzzzt. Incorrect.
She is being treated differently because she is a conservative woman.
Where's my world's smallest violin? Jackie Robinson got treated different too. He still had to hit, field, run, and throw to stay in the game.
“She looked and sounded like someone trying to BS her way through the answer. I’ve done plenty of job interviews. Sorry.”
Jimmy Kimmel played the clip last night and said the exact same thing you just did.
So, Plessy v. Ferguson was correctly decided in its time?
I agree with you on that. Having nothing of value to say about the Supreme Court will not hurt her with people who have nothing of value to say or think about the Supreme Court.
....she has not been running for president the last few years as biden and obama have been doing.
Which sounds like an excuse for why she does not demonstrate a lot of knowledge on the subject. She didn't have to name a case to effectively answer the question. I'm not saying she needed a case to name. But she really had a very weak, nervous, lame answer.
bush wasn't a lawyer, yet he knew he was running for the presidency and I am sure he educated himself to be conversant....sarah can too.
GWB had a campaign promise--judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. He could at least reference the concept of strict construction. Nope. She really whiffed on that one. Wow.
Subvert the dominant paradigm. When asked what Supremes’ decision she doesn’t agree with (or otherwise), as if it mattered a Zimbabwan penny, Sarah ought to pull out the most obscure example that no free advice giving attorney, or anyone else for that matter, would ever remember.
The Speech was great but it makes no references to all these SCOTUS decisions that everybody here is posting about
And it was a speech not an interview
And it addressed specific issues of the day—notice nothing about energy
Point is this lawyering jousting back and forth is BS and not what the people want to hear about
Sarah is not a Reagan (who the hell today is )but I rather have her than Biden
No, actually, it’s correct. 8th grade middle school. I posted a link. It’s a fact.
LOL......I like your moxie thinking!
I’m not a politician (just a doc) and I could have ripped off several bad SC decisions just in the last year or so: eminent domain case, no death penalty for child rapists, habeus corpus rights for gitmo and other enemy non-combatants. Not a good moment.
Is that how she really answered the magazine question?
The edited version I saw on msm/obama tv showed her giving a dodgy answer...”oh well...all of them...”
All the while Katie had that high school “mean girl” attitude going. Using a nice voice - but condescending and belittling her. “Which ones? I’m just curious?”
meow.
LOL. You couldn't be more wrong. It's just that the SCOTUS is an absolute core issue. It's federalism; It's social issues; hell, it's economics. And, it's usually a justification for voting for otherwise odious GOP candidates. Gotta keep the Ginsbergs and Souters off the court. McCain has promised to do that. His running mate was unable to speak forcefully or intelligently on the subject.
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.