Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ducdriver

Dred Scott is the default answer to that question. But she didn’t know about it.

I don’t think that was such a big deal. Not many Americans are familiar with SCOTUS cases.

It is just one more thing that she will have to undo tonight.


9 posted on 10/02/2008 8:19:18 AM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Retired Greyhound

she vaguely referred to a SC case in her acceptance speech didn’t she? The comment about reading miranda rights to terrorists? (OK maybe that’s a reach).

FWIW - I could personally describe certain decisions I disagree with (nixing DP for child rapists for ex.) without knowing the official name of the case.

So Sarah wasn’t just expected to know the decision itself - I’m sure if she got the A vs. B part wrong, she knew she’d be hung too.


12 posted on 10/02/2008 8:24:27 AM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Retired Greyhound

It was a gotcha question, calculated to embarrass a non-lawyer.

So, she isnt an attorney who has read thousands of cases along the way, spent three years being miserable in a socratic method classroom and had the ignominy of being chained to a briefcase.

If she had any idea that that type of question would be asked, she’d probably recall with great clarity the Exxon case that reduced the punitive damages award. At least, that’s the one I’d suggest she discuss if there is a next time.


13 posted on 10/02/2008 8:25:06 AM PDT by Canedawg (If the law supposes that, said Mr. Bumble, the law is a ass, a idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Retired Greyhound
Dred Scott is the default answer to that question. But she didn’t know about it.

Dred Scott was over 125 years ago and overtaken by constitutional amendment

Roe Vs Wade is current events
14 posted on 10/02/2008 8:25:45 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Retired Greyhound

I agree with you. If Sarah can discuss SCOTUS decisions with some familiarity tonight, she will undue any damage there.


26 posted on 10/02/2008 8:42:22 AM PDT by tioga (My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. Luke 1:47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Retired Greyhound
Katie really wanted to ask about abortion. This question was designed to make Gov. Palin bring up the subject of Roe v Wade rather than to ask directly. Gov. Palin knew the question was a trap but unfortunately did not know how to dodge the trap effectively.

The Dred Scott decision would have sent Katie into an area where she had no knowledge.

42 posted on 10/02/2008 8:56:10 AM PDT by Dream Warrior (Pray for Gov. Palin that her answers will be pleasing to the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Retired Greyhound
Not many Americans are familiar with SCOTUS cases.

That's true. Most of us pro-lifers know the decisions that affect that issue, however, so I was a little surprised that she didn't jump right on that. Of course, I would have liked to have seen a little discussion about Roe V Wade and the absurd conclusions the supremes came to on that one.

81 posted on 10/02/2008 10:31:10 PM PDT by ducdriver (Quantum potes tantum aude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson