The Palin SCOTUS Answer Drops

Now, it's true that the average American might not be able to come up with another Supreme Court ruling on the spot (although Bush v. Gore was just eight years ago).

Should the vice president be an average American?  An average Joe?

Or an extraordinary American?

COURIC: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

PALIN: Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are--those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know--going through the history of America, there would be others but--

COURIC: Can you think of any?

PALIN: Well, I could think of--of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

Note: Palin also endorsed a constitutional right to privacy, although "individual states can handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that." 

Comments

She has a point. The US would be so much better if Brown v. Board of Ed had been left for the states to decide.

Posted by Greg | October 1, 2008 6:58 PM

Where was 'ignorant and malicious, teleprompted dumb fuck' among your options, Marc?

Posted by James | October 1, 2008 7:01 PM

Greg,

I'm surprised she doesn't know Epperson v Arkansas.

Posted by James | October 1, 2008 7:04 PM

I pray that there's a constitutional law question at the debate tomorrow, and not on a hot-button social issue. If Palin is so in to federalism, for example, perhaps she can answer a line of questions about the federal commerce clause power and the Lopez and Raich decisions.

Then again, this is someone who thinks that the Supreme Court's habeas jurisprudence is primarily concerned with "reading rights" to terrorists.

Posted by Mitch | October 1, 2008 7:04 PM

The answer is NO! The Pres./VP can not be a regular person...what ever that means. The leader of our country needs to show a healthy understanding of "regular" people, but our leaders also need to show that they are better, either in intellect or ambition, than most people. I don't know why people can't understand that.

Posted by keith | October 1, 2008 7:07 PM

Interstate commerce is a huge issue. That is how the feds for example bust marijuana growers in states that have decriminalized, because potentially it might cross a state line.

If McCain wins, drops dead in February, and then Stevens dies in March, Palin will be picking the justice.

That is some scary stuff.

Posted by trifecta | October 1, 2008 7:13 PM

Even I didn't think it could get worse, but, well, I was wrong about that, now, wasn't I?

Not only is she unable to come up with Bush v. Gore or District of Columbia v. Heller, she can't answer the question at all. Her answer to the follow-up has nothing to do with the question.

This isn't dodging. It's bullshitting.

(Thanks for turning on the comments for this one, Marc!!)

Posted by JenJen | October 1, 2008 7:13 PM

If you read the full transcript, she calls her self a federalist...because she wants more state rights regarding abortion.

Do I have that confused, or was she referring to new federalism a la Reagan?

Posted by Aaron | October 1, 2008 7:14 PM

Dred Scott? Plessy vs Ferguson?
Maybe she would remember the ruling on the Exxon Valdez? That one affected Alaska.

Posted by Richard PERRY | October 1, 2008 7:15 PM

The issue really is whether or not the people who want to be in charge of this great democracy have actually taken time to consider the challenges facing our country, and whether they have the curiosity and knowledge to make sound policy decisions.

If you want to be a leader in American politics, I suspect you should care about policy, about how to achieve your desired results.

If you wanted to be a doctor, you need to study. A lawyer, study. A teacher, study. Being good at any job requires some kind of actual interest in the intellectual foundations underpinning that job.

Palin has shown absolutely no interest in national or international policy. She has not spoken about any major issue at length. She is not curious. This is the issue.

It's not that she cannot name a case-- it's that she has no contextual idea why those cases matter to policy accomplishments.

You don't have to be from D.C. to understand that democracy requires some historical smarts and interest in how to achieve results through government. All Palin has is her unblinking ambition. She is a total, utter failure for our children as a role model. McCain made a major mistake.

Posted by Joe Justice | October 1, 2008 7:18 PM

you think our choices are "average" and "extraordinary"? That would have ruled out about 80% of our vice presidents, the vast majority of whom were simply, thankfully, "above average."

Posted by along | October 1, 2008 7:21 PM

Didn't the 'Bong Hits for Jesus' case come out of Alaska too? You think that would be in "all" the newspapers she reads up there. Any thoughts on Kelo and the Takings Clause? Maybe Webster or Casey since they upheld Roe? How about Rasul, Hamdi, Hamdan, etc. recently that handcuffed the Bush Admin. in the war on terror?

To Hell with it. She's just another ill-informed backbencher who hit it big. Why couldn't McCain have picked Kay Bailey Hutchinson, or Mitt? Ugh.

Posted by Rich | October 1, 2008 7:22 PM

Here is the difference between Biden and Palin for me -- Joe Biden in discussing whether the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy talks about debates with a conservative scholar friend of his. Palin? She basically says, yeah I think so. I want to hire someone for the job of Vice President who actually shows an interest in the issues and history of country. One who has really thought and read about the Constitution. One who even debates Constitutional concepts in their spare time.

Posted by Tinare | October 1, 2008 7:31 PM

Marc - she also says she believes in a right to privacy in the Constitution.

Katie Couric says: the basis of Roe v Wade?

Sarah Palin says: Yes.

Then, she says she's a federalist.

It is nonsensical.

Posted by andysbg | October 1, 2008 7:33 PM

Ok, it maybe difficult for a number of people to go through and name Supreme Court decisions they disagree with, but at least admit it. But instead she has to subject us to an inane beauty pageant answer. There is no defending this candidate and her lack of...

Posted by Eugene | October 1, 2008 7:45 PM

Apropos the commerce clause question, notice that Biden discusses it when he brings up the Violence Against Women Act and the Morrison case. The Couric video shows the difference between someone who understands the constitution and its application in our current political culture, and someone who is not even conversant in the fundamental language of the debate.

Posted by Mitch | October 1, 2008 7:47 PM

Given that part of Palin's big coming out party was a totally cheap shot that Obama's only concern about terrorists is whether we read 'em their rights, her inability to come up with Miranda -- the obvious starting point for her programmers' reference -- shows what a total hack she is. She's a pretty face to deliver the nastiest jabs; the ultimate example of lipstick on a pig.

Posted by zeitgeist | October 1, 2008 7:55 PM

Shorter Sarah Palin:

Couric: "Can you think of any (Supreme Court Cases)"?

Palin: "No."

Wouldn't that have been easier, if nothing else?

Posted by JenJen | October 1, 2008 7:57 PM

There are too many people who will argue that her response to this question (and the Couric interview generally) is irrelevant to the position she seeks (as well as, I dare say, the one she holds). Such people are way more cynical than I have ever been (and that's saying something). Whether or not they are right, John McCain has willfully abdicated his reputation as a man of integrity. I wonder how he will attempt to mitigate this horrendous decision. I don't pity her (she should never have accepted the nomination); I pity him.

Posted by an elitist | October 1, 2008 8:00 PM

Just saw the video. She has no idea of the disconnect between accepting the constitutional right to privacy and allowing states to decide the abortion issue.

Amazing. And Couric even dropped the hint!

Posted by Rich | October 1, 2008 8:04 PM

This is getting painful to watch. It's almost cruel that McCain did this to Palin.

The only thing that's worse is that Palin said she never for a moment considered saying "no" to McCain.

Posted by Almatt | October 1, 2008 8:12 PM

I think her answer means that, yes there is a an unenumerated right to privacy in the constitution, but no, it has not been incorporated through the 14th Amendment.

I don't know enough about this issue, but if you start with Roe being wrongly decided that maybe is a valid position? Or maybe completely ridiculous? Would need a law prof.

Also, I love the commenter who is amazed she couldn't think of Bush v. Gore or Heller as "wrongly decided" cases. Those were correctly decided in her view.

The fact is, conservatives haven't really been losing at the Supreme Court lately. Not in cases they really care about.

Posted by Ray | October 1, 2008 8:43 PM

She couldnt even recall Exxon v. Baker? Lord help us all.

Posted by cjtwillie | October 1, 2008 8:53 PM

Sarah Palin disqualified herself for the postion of Vice President when she had the poor judgment to accept the Republican nomination for it. John McCain disqualified himself for the position of President when he had the recklessness and cynicism to offer the vice presidency to her. Even though I'm a democrat, McCaain failed in a fundamental duty to me, and millions of others, in making that choice. He should stick to playing craps.

Posted by Matt | October 1, 2008 9:09 PM

Um, Ray, really? Odd that this June, McCain called Boumediene the "worst Supreme Court decision ever."

Posted by Greg | October 1, 2008 9:18 PM

"The fact is, conservatives haven't really been losing at the Supreme Court lately. Not in cases they really care about."

What about several consecutive terrorism cases? Perhaps Lawrence v. Texas? The Michigan affirmative action cases (Gratz/Grutter)? Those were all within the last five years, and I suspect conservatives care about them.

Luckily, Lawrence at least was based on privacy rights so I guess Palin is on board.

Posted by Rich | October 1, 2008 9:20 PM

I am sure, as was mentioned above, that some people will see this as a trivial pursuit sort of gotcha - who can sit around and name Supreme Court cases? (As a matter of fact, almost everyone I know can name more than just Roe, but putting that aside for a moment. . . )

If it were just Supreme Court cases, that may be one thing. But she also can't name a magazine or newspaper that she relies on. She couldn't name any regulations McCain had ever supported (and there are some). She can't explain anything about the bailout bill. She can't (without exaggerating) name foreign countries she has been in, or foreign leaders she's met.

You get the idea. One of these examples may be explained away as a trivial gotcha. Collectively, she simply lacks the threshold level of knowledge (and I think one can safely infer from that also lacks the curiousity) about basic national and international issues should would face as Veep or, god forbid, President.

I dont see how anyone but the most blindly partisan can really defend her or McCain choosing her.

Posted by zeitgeist | October 1, 2008 9:27 PM

Agree-- her answers are nonsensical. She clearly doesn't even understand the concept of federalism.

She gave a very nervous smile when Katie asked her about another Supreme Court case. It's not as though she was blanking out-- I honestly don't think she knew any. We don't learn Supreme Court cases only in "elitist" universities, we teach this stuff in high school-- there's simply no excuse for her ignorance.

And Marc, most of us are obviously going to say that a VP must be reasonably intelligent.

Posted by Natascha | October 1, 2008 9:28 PM

I just made the connection zeitgeist mentioned above. Its now clear that she doesn't even understand the speeches she is making. She slams Obama for supporting the rights of terrorists but is completely unable to name any of the several Supreme Court decisions that are the basis for making that claim (most recently being Boumediene as I mention above). She didn't even have to mention the name she could have just said the one that gave habeas corpus rights to terrorists.

Posted by Greg | October 1, 2008 9:53 PM

Even if her only source of information was People magazine, surely she could have cited the Supreme Court's unanimous decision to allow Anna Nicole Smith to pursue her legal claim to her late husband's estate.

Posted by anne | October 1, 2008 10:00 PM

Look, I'm no Palin fan, but I think people are being very, very slightly unfair here. I interpret Couric's question as, "Can you think of any [others you disagree with]?" And from that basis, it's a little harder. Dred Scott is an obvious one, but not exactly timely. I, personally, disagree with Kelo; I might have expected a conservative to cite Boumediene. I'm not sure I'd have come up with Kelo on the spot, though... but then, I'm not running for VP.

Posted by Zach | October 1, 2008 10:06 PM

Every American enrolled in a decent government class at some point in their life (these are required for journalism majors, right?) learns about Dred Scott and Plessy V Ferguson, and Palin would've been reasonable to say she forgot the names, but the cases that treated black people as property and legalized segregation.

Hell, Bush was able to answer this one in 2004.

Finally, if you take Palin's answer literally, she's saying that the only bad Court decisions were on things that would've been better left to the states. She thinks that's the case with segregation?

Posted by Zach | October 1, 2008 10:56 PM

Holy shit; two Zach's at once? We're not the same.

Posted by Zach | October 1, 2008 10:58 PM

I'm as big a Palin critic as any, but the privacy question needs some context. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Alaska Constitution expressly recognizes an individual's right of privacy, and the Alaska Supreme Court, in some areas, has used this to recognize greater protections than provided in the federal Bill of Rights. So maybe Palin is confused (that wouldn't be a first). I have relatives in Alaska who are very conservative, and while I haven't quizzed them on constitutional law, my guess is that they believe in a constitutional right of privacy but do not believe it extends to the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. They like to be left alone by government in a lot of other areas.

Posted by Jim | October 1, 2008 10:59 PM

In February C-span interviewed Gov. Palin.
She spoke of the pending Exxon Valdez case. In a later interview she spoke of her disappointment in the ruling.
Couric gave a question that she should have found easy to answer. Instead she gives word salad.

Posted by kate | October 1, 2008 11:14 PM

I don't recall which interview it was - probably Charlie's - but Palin mentioned how things were in "this world" as opposed to presumably a better world or at least a promised one. The manner of her response struck me as intensely religious.

I think her whole life revolves around her kids and her religion, with the job coming in a distant third. To hell with Con Law, The Economist or Darwin's travels.

Now, as a father of two young one's, that's really not a bad thing at all - unless you wish to command a democracy, a company or a life outside of your own family. I therefore sense a problem.

The real issue isn't her lack of curiosity, it's her utter certainty, her certainty that T-Rex roamed along with Homo Sapiens but managed to escape the tough times associated with mass extinction.

Maybe we prayed. I know I am.

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | October 2, 2008 12:31 AM

I agree, the only thing more dangerous than an ignorant person is an ignorant person who is ignorant of his own ignorance.

Posted by Buorky | October 2, 2008 5:26 AM

A constitutional right on which the the states get to decide? A constitutional right states can mess with while the federal government has to sit on its hands?

Sounds like Miss Palin is part of the legal school of "constitutional rights are swell and a part of the of the rich history of this country... like nascar and lawn decorations, Charlie"

Enthusiasm gap = turnout gap.

Posted by ofe | October 2, 2008 7:26 AM

"Would need a law prof"

Future law prof here - Alito and Roberts also attest to the existence of a "right to privacy," in the sense that privacy is a clearly visible *theme* of the Bill of Rights.

The crux is whether that "right to privacy" encompasses abortion. It certainly doesn't encompass, e.g., drug use.

Posted by Knemon | October 2, 2008 2:49 PM

Maybe she knew other cases, maybe she didn't. But it sounds to me more like she didn't know which cases she had permission to disagree with. What with her handlers being tyrannical and all, and you know McCain's temper.

She's a disaster in terms of policy, and I'd never trust someone who massacres wild animals from an airplane for the fun of it, but I give her a pass on this one.

Posted by Hans B | October 2, 2008 8:47 PM

"I'd never trust someone who massacres wild animals from an airplane for the fun of it"

1) She's never done it herself
2) The purpose is predator population control. Wolves eat, inter alias, those darling ANWR caribou.
3) Get some fresh TPs, my advice.

Posted by Knemon | October 2, 2008 11:15 PM