Patters

But, think about it: If you were a national politician and were asked about a case you disagreed with, you don't think you could have thought of any of the following: Plegy v. Ferguson, Drew Scott, Lawrence v. State of Texas (legalized homosexuality), Jerry Falwell v. Larry Flynt, the 2000 ruling that gave the election to Bush, Miranda, Bakkie, campaign financing. It's pretty amazing that she wasn't well enough read to give some kind of intelligent answer.

This column makes other interesting points, such as:

Couric-Palin: The Supreme Court Question - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

In response to a follow-up question by Ms. Couric, Ms. Palin said she believed there was an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution. That view is sharply at odds with some conservatives, who believe that the court was wrong to cite a right to privacy as the basis of its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion.

Ms. Palin did not say how she could believe in a right to privacy and oppose Roe v. Wade. After Ms. Couric called the right to privacy “the cornerstone” of the decision, Ms. Palin again said she believed in a right to privacy: “I do. And I believe that individual states can best 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.”

IcyPatriot

She had a brain fart ... we all get those.

Turk

She did not know FBN.
Admit it.

FBN, You are a true Republican.
An old school, Mid-West, self-reliant Republican that belives in the American Dream, that believes that with hard work, anything can be achieved in this beautiful land.

Do you honestly believe this shallow woman shares the same values?
Do you honestly belive that this woman actually has any depth?
That she is the best choice for the second highest office?

Or is she a clueless embarrassment to, well....America?
Wasn't Bush enough of a blabbering idiot, why does what has taken over the Republican Party insist on another?

scout

Caught a Fred Thompson statement, the reason Palin did not know any other Supreme Court cases was because she did not attend law school. She is a non-lawyer candidate, thus did not get a list of cases. You could call this the dumbing down of Fred Thompson. I guess I should have been a lawyer as I can state a number of Supreme Court cases and I don't even have a journalism degree, I mean law degree.

Patsfanin Philly

It's Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott but a softball answer could also have be Kelo v New London which legalized eminent domain and taking of private property for private ventures...

KELO V. NEW LONDON

PatsFanInVa

Yeah, I actually did not think it was terrible, because the phrasing was "besides Roe v. Wade..." and most people do not know the names of cases... so most people won't mark her down for not knowing them by name, and clearly she couldn't say "ya know, that one where..." like she's naming a Friends episode.

As Olberman joked about, she could have screwed up and said Alien v. Predator, but that's about what most people know in terms of "v." anything.

PFnV

patsfan13

The only people who memorize cases are lawyers, we have too many lawyers in government. The important thing is the type of judge she favors. not being a law student.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

BelichickFan

The right to privacy may have been the cornerstone of the decision but you can believe in the right to privacy and oppose Roe v. Wade. We all believe in the Freedom of Speech but it doesn't override everything. Same with the right to privacy. I have a right to privacy inside my own home but that doesn't mean I can kill my kids if I'm in my own house. Same for the abortion argument for those of us who believe it's the killing of a human life.

Patsfanin Philly

What many who oppose abortion object to is the fact that the right to privacy is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution. It is only what Justice Douglas called the "penumbra of rights" that articulated the right to privacy that bothers strict constructionalists.

cupofjoe1962

The supreme court is a total joke.

Their decisions are not based on the constitution.
They take a passage and spin it to meet their political views.

Tell me a case & if is is a left vs right issue, I bet I can tell you how Ruth Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas are going to vote.