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.
When Kouric asked her which decision she disagreed with, I was expecting (hoping) to hear “Dred Scott”.
Marbury, Brown, and Plessy are pretty much grammar school level, aren’t they? She might as well come out in favor of brushing and flossing.
What was her answer? I didn’t watch any of it. I’ve been ignoring politics and reading mostly financial information.
Nevermind. Just saw the clip. Man, she pretty well whiffed on that one.She looked and sounded like someone trying to BS her way through the answer. I’ve done plenty of job interviews. Sorry.
Actually Marbury contrasts nicely with today’s judicial activism, and the Plessy/Brown decisions neatly shows how the Supreme Court can get it wrong, but is a strong enough of an institution to reverse course (plus no one is going to argue with Brown, and should give pause to anyone denying civil rights to an unborn child).
These cases are simple, but remember the KISS principle in addition to the more nuanced aspects of these cases.
The correct answer, if she could not think of anything specific (KELO), would have been:
Katie, I disagree with any decision where the court writes law instead of interprets it.
If Couric pressed again for a specific example besides Roe, her answer could have been:
Katie, in my mind a decision that lead to the execution of 40 million unborn children can't be brushed aside as you are trying to do with this question. I will admit that that's the example that is foremost on my mind and if it were the only example of judicial abuse then it alone would be enough. It would be as if you asked me for other examples of genocide other than the holocaust, as if the holocaust were not important enough to be the only answer. The one example so dwarfs all others that I can see why you would want to change the subject.
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.
Governor Palin is certainly bright, and I suspect her choke was more indicative of her weakness in the area of media savvy rather than one of basic American jurisprudence. Having said that, our system of government depends on those seeking office in any of the three branches to have a working knowledge of the other two with whom they are supposed to check, balance and co-exist. I would recommend any person seeking a position in the executive or legislative branches read Mark Levin's Men In Black.
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.
She obviously is not a constitutional scholar, but she accepted the VP nomination. She has had plenty of time to be briefed on the landmark Supreme Court cases over the past two centuries.
She is a smart woman. Anybody, and I mean anybody, who possesses her intelligence can become conversant, albeit on a limited basis, on basic con law.
The Judiciary is one of the three branches, which, if Sarah Palin ever became President, she would need to be initimately familiar with its history in order to competently nominate a Justice.
A basic knowledge is not too much to expect at this point and could be obtained in about 3-4 hours time. Lord, someone could have simply provided her with a basic conlaw outline.
She is not expected to be a lawyer/con law scholar, but independent voters expect some basic knowledge re the Supreme Court.
I’m just sayin’, if Palin gives grammar school answers, that is exactly how the MSM will report it—with a sneer. She blew the Couric question. I just watched it. She was trying to BS her way through it. There were ways she could have addressed it, instead she flopped like a fish. She’s blood in the water to the MSM at this point.
Might fancy gramar school. Haven’t thought of Marbury v. Madison since Con Law I, in law school.
Thing is, as a lawyer, I don’t wind up reading USSC opinions anymore than the average person. Graduated in top 10%, and I was stumped for an answer as well. I might have been able to talk about cases in general, but I could not have named the specific cases. I find no fault with how she responded.
But in the end, she really did have a tack, in that Palin is running for the executive branch, and not the judiciary. It really doesn’t matter what opinions she disagreed with, she’s not ever going to decide any, that’s not in her purview. The only thing she might be connected with is selecting a USSC Justice candidate.
The more appropriate question would have been which justices do you agree with, and which do you believe render opinions outside the view of American public.
the entire interview that first day was a gotch interview, and she felt like any answer would lead to another gotcha question. She did much better on the second day when she stopped playing Katie’s game.
“Can you name magazines that you read?”
“You know, Katie, Alaska is NOT another planet, we actually do read up there, and no, I am NOT going to name the magazines that I read.”
She is learning.
Which further concedes the point that knowledge isn't her strong suit when it comes to the job she is seeking. Not saying it can't work, but then again, it'd be nice if the supposed savoirette of conservatism had some interest in the subject. I'm just a working musician, and evidentally I have more command of the subject than she does. Then again, how much of a clue does the top of our ticket have?
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.