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.
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.
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.
I agree with you. If Sarah can discuss SCOTUS decisions with some familiarity tonight, she will undue any damage there.
The Dred Scott decision would have sent Katie into an area where she had no knowledge.
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.