The Palin Supreme Court Video : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« The Truth About ACORN | Main | False Allegations of Intimidation by Obama Campaign »

The Palin Supreme Court Video

Posted on: October 2, 2008 9:02 AM, by Ed Brayton

Wow. It's even worse than it was reported. Much worse. She clearly cannot name a single Supreme Court ruling other than Roe v Wade. Not Brown v Board of Education. Not Bush v Gore. Not Loving v Virginia. Not Dred Scott. Not one. She's completely stumped and she tries, very badly, to bullshit her way through the question. It's absolutely incredible to watch. Video below the fold.

Find more posts in: Politics

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

Last night, Rachel Maddow was trying to make the case that Governor Palin is, in fact, a dynamite debater and that Senator Biden better watch his step. We shall see.

Posted by: SLC | October 2, 2008 9:28 AM

What about Boumediene v. Bush?

While I certainly wouldn't expect her to remember the name of the case (to be fair, I didn't either), why was Palin unable to refer to this recent ruling with which her running mate vehemently disagreed? In fact, didn't she refer to this ruling, albeit in a way that shows that she doesn't really understand what habeas corpus is, in her acceptance speech at the RNC?

"Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights."

Posted by: sdg | October 2, 2008 9:30 AM

I would watch this, but then I think I'd spend the rest of my day being both angry and depressed about what passes for electability in this country these days.

Christ, Reagan may have been wrong about most issues, but at least he KNEW WHAT THEY WERE!

Posted by: Julian | October 2, 2008 9:35 AM

I would almost feel sorry for her, except she was such a toxic bitch at the Republican Convention. This pitbull with lipstick is all bite with no bark and belongs in the doghouse.

Posted by: Royale | October 2, 2008 9:35 AM

To be fair, she was asked to name another decision that she disagreed with. That's a little different than just asking her to name any decision. Mind you, I'm not convinced she could've done that either...

SLC: I've seen clips of her debates for Gov, and she is a competant debater -- when she knows what the hell she's talking about. Which, of course, is the problem.

Posted by: WScott | October 2, 2008 9:35 AM

I dunno: all the articles describing why she's such a dynamite debater tell the story of her triumphing by basically playing up her populist ignorance and niceness in between two nasty men. I'm not sure that's going to fly on the national stage.

Posted by: Bad | October 2, 2008 9:35 AM

To be fair, the question was harder than just naming a case, she was asked which ones she disagreed with. That's a much harder question, because most cases that Joe Sixpack would know about were significant because of their positive effect on society. She couldn't argue against Brown or Loving and expect anyone to agree with her. And she certainly wasn't going to argue against Bush v Gore.

I think it's obvious she blanked on this one, because she had written and spoken against the Exxon case in Alaska earlier this year.

Her answer is awful however, and quite frankly embarrassing. If this is considered a "gotcha" question, at what point does "What state are you governor of?" become a "gotcha" question?

Posted by: Odie | October 2, 2008 9:37 AM

Moose v Rifle? Polar Bear v Exxon?
Ed, have you seen her answer about teaching creationism where she advocates local boards taking the decision over the correct curriculum to teach in science class?
And what the hell has happened to the press in the USA?
Looking at the coverage as an outsider you could easily be forgiven for drawing the conclusion that the best and most incisive reporters in the USA are Katie Couric and the panel from The View!

Posted by: Sigmund | October 2, 2008 9:38 AM

I think that the bit where she says 'all of them', followed by a load of BS, when asked what newspapers and magazines she reads is both much funnier and much more worrying.

Posted by: Flaky | October 2, 2008 9:39 AM

I didn't see this as the same, or quite as bad, as the rumors said. She couldn't think of another SC decision which she disagreed with. (That would probably rule out Bush v. Gore, although leaving plenty like the Miranda decision and the recent Guantanamo-related decisions to invigorate her base with.)

There was no blank period of silence, which I had heard rumors of. In my opinion, though, silence would have been better than trying to bluff her way through. Even better would have been to admit she was stumped. What's wrong with the truth?

Posted by: JimV | October 2, 2008 9:45 AM

Compare this to Biden's answer. I happen to disagree with Biden on the case he cites, and believe the SC got it right on that one.

But Biden has a rational basis for his position which he can articulate and defend. I think he's wrong, but reasonable people can disagree.

With Palin, however, it's painfully clear that she has no idea what she's talking about, on either question asked in the clip. She doesn't really understand at all what Roe v. Wade was about, or else she wouldn't be affirming that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution. She just knows she's against the results of the case, without having any idea of the whys and wherefores.

On the one hand you have a reasonable position based on actual facts and precedents (for example, Biden invokes the interstate commerce clause, his basis for arguing the case). On the other you have blind faith unaccompanied by even a passing familiarity with the fundamentals of the issue.

Like with GW Bush, it comes down to a lack of intellectual curiosity, resulting in the absence of the sort of general, well-grounded familiarity with the issues you need to start your more rigorous education about them.

Posted by: Jeff Hebert | October 2, 2008 10:28 AM

Yeah, as a previous commenter noted, the question was a little bit harder than "Name one Supreme Court decision". Would I have been able to come up with one I disagreed with on the hot seat like that during an interview? I'd like to think that I'd at least remember Dred Scott, but I can't say for sure.

I also agree with the person who wrote:

I think that the bit where she says 'all of them', followed by a load of BS, when asked what newspapers and magazines she reads is both much funnier and much more worrying.

Posted by: Adrienne | October 2, 2008 10:31 AM

leaving plenty like the Miranda decision and the recent Guantanamo-related decisions to invigorate her base with.

And that to me is what is really telling about Palin -- it's not even that she seems uninformed, but that she's not even answering the questions in a way that would speak to her base. She could have said "I disagree with the Supreme Court on terror suspects." She could have said "I try to read a variety of news perspectives, because I worry that sometimes the mainstream media doesn't tell the whole story." Her inability to do basic pandering to her base suggests she's really challenged by thinking on her feet.

Posted by: Tulse | October 2, 2008 10:33 AM

I would probably say Kelo v. New London. It's so simultaneously fun and depressing to play the "Would you make a better VP candidate than Palin?" game.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2008 10:40 AM

"Reagan may have been wrong about most issues, but at least he KNEW WHAT THEY WERE!"

Reagan's ability to lie with a straight face has only been rivaled (possibly equalled) by Bill Clinton. I think the only thing Reagan ever understood was working the camera, and the only thing he never lied about was his name. Poor person for reference in this case.

Posted by: dean | October 2, 2008 10:43 AM

Most interesting was that she adamantly supported the idea that there is a constitutional right to privacy. That was the foundational claim in Roe v. Wade, and the claim that is hated by many Roe opponents.

Or in other words, her understanding of the legal argument in Roe is nil, she just didn't like the outcome.

Posted by: James Hanley | October 2, 2008 10:47 AM

Good point, Tulse. We've had plenty of politicians who couldn't answer basic questions that people running for office should be able to answer. But those people have typically been able to deflect the question and spin it in some manner.

Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | October 2, 2008 10:53 AM

Yeah, as a previous commenter noted, the question was a little bit harder than "Name one Supreme Court decision". Would I have been able to come up with one I disagreed with on the hot seat like that during an interview?

I'll just use your comment but this is really to everybody saying that, not just you. http://bcclist.com/2008/10/02/sarah-palins-disappointment-with-a-supreme-court-decision/

Given that she obviously does know of at least one ruling she doesn't like but can't name it now, I would say that perhaps she's just trying not to say anything concrete because, as McCains gimmick pick, she's not sure of what she's supposed to say. She's already said things contrary to McCain's and her own positions, maybe she's decided or been told that dribbling shit is the better alternative.

Posted by: tincture | October 2, 2008 10:54 AM

Yeah, she was asked about ones she disagreed with, but that still gives her a bunch of options. Start with Boumediene and Hamdan.

Then you have all the church state cases, like Everson, McCollum, Schempp, Engel, Torcaso, Edwards, etc. Throw in Griswold and Lawrence, and there's her answer.

I would think, given her actual answer, that she would disagree with anything that injects federal authority over the states, that she'd have problems with all of these.

Posted by: chris | October 2, 2008 11:01 AM

True, and if she doesn't like Roe v. Wade, she should have at least been able to name Doe v. Bolton too.

Posted by: Adrienne | October 2, 2008 11:07 AM

Yeah, I don't buy the notion that this question was unfair or too hard because it asked for rulings that she disagreed with. I don't expect her to be as conversant as I am about obscure court rulings, of course. If she had said, "Well Katie, I thought Felix Frankfurter's ruling in Gobitis v Minersville School District ignored the strong role that de facto coercion plays in a school environment and I was glad to see the court recognize that themselves a few years later in Barnette and reverse themselves," I would have fallen off my chair. But as others have noted, she had already used the "giving rights to terrorists" argument in previous speeches. At the very least, she could have said, without actually naming the case, "I think the recent case granting habeas corpus rights to terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay was wrong." Not only would it have been an honest response, it would have been a strategically smart one since it fits with McCain's position and that of most of their voters. Failing that, she could have at least reached for the trite and the obvious and said that she disagreed with Dred Scott or Plessy v Ferguson. But it's quite clear that she's never heard of even those decisions.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 2, 2008 11:11 AM

James Hanley wrote:

Most interesting was that she adamantly supported the idea that there is a constitutional right to privacy. That was the foundational claim in Roe v. Wade, and the claim that is hated by many Roe opponents.

To be fair, this is not at all an incoherent argument. One can accept a right to privacy and still not think that abortion falls within the sphere of that right. There are many legal scholars who are pro-choice who take that position, in fact, and argue that the right to privacy was the wrong basis for Roe and that the case should have been decided on different grounds.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 2, 2008 11:16 AM

It's also quite possible she actually agrees with Dred Scott and Plessy.

Here's a link to Doe v. Bolton that Adrienne mentioned. I had never heard of that one, although I probably should have.

Posted by: chris | October 2, 2008 11:17 AM

I can't believe she didn't bring up Exxon v. Baker, which was argued and decided in the Supreme Court this calendar year. Even better for her, it's a case I know she disagreed with. It was right in her wheelhouse. How could she not name it?

Posted by: FishyFred | October 2, 2008 11:22 AM

Oh, the question was definitely not too hard. But after initially hearing that she was asked to name a case and couldn't do it, this seems more understandable.

To say that she disagreed with a ruling would be a political statement that leaves open the possibility of taking a highly unpopular stance on an issue. It is clear that Sarah Palin only wants to take a popular position.

She (and the entire McCain campaign) is trying to run out the clock on the election. I think that has been the strategy the entire time with her. Surprise everyone with a powerful convention speech and then disappear and don't say anything of substance. It becomes comical after a while that they thought it could last for two months.

Posted by: Odie | October 2, 2008 11:28 AM

Ed, Can you really argue though (as she seemed to) that a right to privacy should be left to the States and not the Federal government?

Posted by: Odie | October 2, 2008 11:35 AM

Heavens to Murgatroyd, every clip I see gets worse and worse. I'd like to extend a giant group hug from Scotland to every single US citizen who possesses an iota of intelligence. Here's hoping it'll all be over soon!

Posted by: Paul A | October 2, 2008 12:39 PM

Failing that, she could have at least reached for the trite and the obvious and said that she disagreed with Dred Scott or Plessy v Ferguson.

Or Korematsu. Or, seriously, Kelo. There are definitely some easy ones here.

Posted by: nicole | October 2, 2008 12:42 PM

Wasn't the recent ruling about the hang gun ban in DC a supreme court case? (Or was it a case that the supreme court chose not to rule on.)

It just seems that since Palin is running with a strong pro-gun (or at least trying to cast Obama as anti-gun) she'd be very much up on that one.

Eh, go figure.

Posted by: SpotWeld | October 2, 2008 1:06 PM

Next president will reshape U.S. courts from top to bottom

Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 2, 2008 1:24 PM

SpotWeld--since the Heller case decided that DC's handgun regulations were unconstitutional, I would assume Palin was in favor of that ruling.

Posted by: nicole | October 2, 2008 1:49 PM

Didn't SCOTUS rule against several states "partial birth abortion" bans?

Posted by: democommie | October 2, 2008 2:05 PM

Nicole - Oh, I'm sure she was in favor of it too.. I just don't know why she didn't appear to know about it. Or, if she did, why didn't she mention it. It's an issue that plays perfectly to her base and would have been certainly mentioned in any emails/newsletters the NRP sends to it's members.

Posted by: SpotWeld | October 2, 2008 3:06 PM

Recent Supreme Court Ruling

Mudflats calls her out, with photo.

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/palin-v-supreme-court/

(There are several fine Alaskan blogs, this is my favorite).

Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | October 2, 2008 3:10 PM

NRA I mean.

Posted by: SpotWeld | October 2, 2008 3:10 PM

Failing that, she could have at least reached for the trite and the obvious and said that she disagreed with Dred Scott or Plessy v Ferguson. But it's quite clear that she's never heard of even those decisions.

Which even more baffling, as the Dred Scott decision is often used as a code for Roe v. Wade in fundie circles.

Posted by: Turcano | October 2, 2008 4:50 PM

For crying out loud, the state of Alaska filed an amicus brief in Exxon v. Baker arguing that the $2.5 billion punitive damage award was appropriate. They lost. It's shameful that she didn't bring it up. (Assuming that she actually disagrees with the outcome.)

Here's the amicus brief: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-219_RespondentAmCuAlaska.pdf

Posted by: Lowell | October 2, 2008 5:21 PM

Re: the Exxon verdict...come on now, oil companies are some of the biggest donors to the Republican Party. Even if she had remembered this decision (which she probably did not), and even if she disagreed with it, she would not have dared say that out loud.

Posted by: Adrienne | October 2, 2008 6:12 PM

Adrienne: "Would I have been able to come up with one I disagreed with on the hot seat like that during an interview? I'd like to think that I'd at least remember Dred Scott, but I can't say for sure."

As Odie and FishyFred mentioned, Palin vocally disagreed with the Exxon Valdez ruling. The question was practically a softball invitation for Palin to unload her talking points. Yes, Adrienne, Palin is not afraid to challenge Exxon -- it's the oil company Alaskans love to hate. Indeed, challenging Exxon is one of the bricks in her "maverick" reputation.

Also, the fact that Biden was able to answer shows the question was fair (although I disagree with his answer).

Posted by: Grumpy | October 2, 2008 8:46 PM

I don't think I would be able to come up with any. Maybe Brown v. Board of Education. But then, I'm a game programmer, not a candidate for veep.

Posted by: scrabcake | October 2, 2008 9:12 PM

The position that states should have final say is Antifederalism, right? She just equated that to federalism. (Jefferson was the 1st antifederalist pres.)

Posted by: zpmorgan | October 2, 2008 9:28 PM