rssPalin Now a Supreme Court Scholar
Friday, October 03, 2008 at 3:11 pm
- 7 Comments
Well, if there were any doubts that Fox News would provide Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin an opportunity for a “do-over” on those annoying questions asked by CBS’ Katie Couric, they are officially laid to rest.
Palin was a veritable fountain of recent Supreme Court trivia when Carl Cameron asked her if she could name any decisions she disagreed with, other than Roe vs. Wade.
Palin cited Kennedy vs. Louisiana, in which the high court held that a death sentence for a man convicted of the rape of a child constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Palin took issue with the ruling because Louisiana’s “rights were taken away by the Supreme Court.”
She also disagrees with “the Kelo case,” or Kelo vs. New London — a now-famous eminent domain ruling — because “property rights are so precious.”
Finally, she disputed the recent Exxon vs. Baker decision, which directly affected her state while she was governor.
She did not refer to it by name, instead saying, “the Exxon Valdez oil spill — the siding with the oil company, as they decimated Alaska’s coastline…on the punitive damage that was to be awarded.”
Cameron also allowed Palin another stab at answering which newspapers and magazines she reads. He said her answer was, “The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and…The Economist magazine.”
Wow. Nothing to be embarrassed about there. If she’s so well-informed, why didn’t she just say that the first time?
UPDATE: Here’s the video, thanks to TPM.
7 Comments
Comment posted October 3, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
This is utterly amazing. We are looking at the very best libertarian politician of all-time. I used to think Barry Goldwater was the greatest champion of freedom in US History. Sarah Palin is vastly surpassing even the Libertarian god – Goldwater.
Comment posted October 4, 2008 @ 9:11 am
Okay. We all know she can read a teleprompter. It's nothing more than a staged event…an infomercial.
Comment posted October 5, 2008 @ 9:45 am
Actually, there was a great deal “to be embarrassed about” in Palin's response.
She disagreed with one ruling because Louisiana’s “rights were taken away by the Supreme Court.” That means she doesn't have a clue of the role of the Supreme Court in our system — not to mention the states' rights issue that most of us thought was resolved by the Civil War. Moreover, the case she cites didn't involve any right of the State of Louisiana; it was about the rights of the defendant. The constitution gives citizens –not state governments — a right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
As to the eminent domain case, no one has ever suggested that the Court does not consider property rights to be “precious” — all our rights under the Constitution are precious. But that doesn't mean that they cannot be limited; nor does it mean that the Court cannot determine whether a statute does/does not unconstitutionally infringe on them.
On the Exon Valdez case, I'd give her a little credit, though I doubt she understood the legal issues. I only regret that she was not being interviewed by someone who would have followed up by asking her if the result would have been different if Al Gore rather than George Bush had made the most recent Supreme Court appointments.
Though, this interview sounded a bit better, in reality it was as bad as (or worse than) the Katie Couric one. Palin again did her beauty pageant contestant trying to sound like she knows enough to answer a question while spouting nonsense thing, which is what we always see when Palin isn't reading or reciting something written for her by others.
The scary thing is that, presumably, Palin was coached on this question before the interview. So either: (1) Palin is not very smart &/or poorly educated; or (2) the McCain's staff coaching her are not very smart &/or poorly educated. In either case, this suggests that John McCain's judgment is not what we want in a president.
Comment posted October 5, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
Sally Canzoneri is spot on. None of the cases turned on a state's rights issue.
Palin's remarks demonstrate her utter failure to grasp the legal basis of these cases. And, this after she had several days to prep her answer.
Palin is totally clueless about our US Consititution (also demonstrated by her answer to Gwen Ifill's question about the VP's role) and it would be so dangerous to put her into this high office.
Comment posted October 24, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Palin has lift up political satire to the new level
See my collection here http://www.ucubd.com/Index.aspx?id=776&tcid=3165
Comment posted October 24, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
Palin has lift up political satire to the new level
See my collection here http://www.ucubd.com/Index.aspx?id=776&tcid=3165
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
