Indeferent Couric Stumps Palin = Supreme Court Question

[L. Coyote]

Run time: 02:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rXmuhWrlj4   Posted on YouTube: October 02, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 02, 2008 By DU Member: L. Coyote Views on DU: 2148

 

[Muttocracy]

1. Question - did she just get the definition of Federalist wrong too? nt

[garthranzz]

3. YES!

Hamilton wanted a strong national government with financial credibility.

Hamilton founded the Federalist Party.

That took, oh, 15 seconds on Google-Wikipeida.

[crim son]

5. I just read in the Stanford Encyclopedia

that she got it right.

[garthranzz]

19. Quote?

Either you misread the Stanford Encyclopedia, or it made a mistake:

Hamilton-Federalists-(Washington-Adams)-central bank-business-strong federal government
Jefferson-Democratic/Republicans-(Jefferson-Madison-Monroe)-decentralized money-farmers-states stronger

[crim son]

25. Here you go:

Federalism
First published Sun Jan 5, 2003; substantive revision Thu Oct 12, 2006
Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act independently of the others in some area. Citizens thus have political obligations to two authorities. The allocation of authority between the sub-unit and center may vary, typically the center has powers regarding defense and foreign policy, but sub-units may also have international roles. The sub-units may also participate in central decision-making bodies. Much recent philosophical attention is spurred by renewed political interest in federalism, coupled with empirical findings concerning the requisite and legitimate basis for stability and trust among citizens in federations. Philosophical contributions have addressed the dilemmas and opportunities facing Canada, Australia and Europe, to mention just a few areas where federal arrangements are seen as interesting solutions to accommodating differences among populations divided by ethnic or cultural cleavages yet seeking a common political order.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism/

[Muttocracy]

the states' rights' group was Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans

Run time: 02:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rXmuhWrlj4   Posted on YouTube: October 02, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 02, 2008 By DU Member: Muttocracy Views on DU: 2148

 
this is coming back to me now...

ack - I can't even edit out the woman in pink glitch! :scared:

[Capt. America]

2. She has no idea of any other Supreme Court decisions...Hey Sarah, I have one I disagree with...

...Bush V. Gore.

[ohioINC]

12. Palin supports soddomy

see Lawrence vs. Texas

[crim son]

4. Okay, now there's no doubt.

She's a dumbass.

[SunDrop23]

7. In all seriousness, she doesn't know squat about anything. (nt)

[crim son]

8. You are obviously right. I just like to give people twenty or thirty chances

before passing final judgement.

[Muttocracy]

20. Rachel Maddow said this evening - shouldn't a high school grad

be able to come up with Brown v. Board or Plessy v. Ferguson? Or even Marbury v. Madison (fake it if you're not sure what it means - though if prepped, she should know it)

[crim son]

26. Maybe not every forty-something HS grad, but certainly the Governer of Alaska

ought to have a basic clue. Especially a governer with Palin's vast experience. :sarcasm: The thing is, precisely because the average grad may very well be as numb as she is, she remains a danger to our country.

[beac]

30. If only she'd paid a WEE bit of attention when she was

"so privileged as to" be sitting in American History class in front of the poor sod who was, apparently futilely, trying to teach her something.


Alas, information seems to whistle through Palin's brain like hot breath through a flute:

[progdonkey]

6. not a lawyer, but off the top of my head...

Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott, Brown v. Board of Education, Bush v. Gore, Lawrence v. Kansas (that was the contraception one, right?).

Oh, and the Amistad thing. That went to the Supreme Court, too--I saw it in that movie, so it must be 100% true! :P

[tclambert]

10. Another one

Don't recall the name of it, but the Supremes ruled in one case that corporations had the same rights as people--freedom of speech, right to sue human beings, participate in political campaigns, etc. But, of course, they don't have the same obligations. A corporation can commit a crime and not go to jail, for instance.

Now there's a decision that deserves review.

[tclambert]

13. Corporate personhood was sort of in, but not really in

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1886. The corporate personhood aspect was not actually in the opinion, but was in a statement preceding the opinion. And the debate over it gets more complicated from there.

[54anickel]

16. That was a misinterpretation of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

http://www.mcn.org/e/iii/afd/santaclara.html

[tclambert]

21. More Supreme Court cases

Lawrence v. Kansas? Couldn't find it. Lawrence v. Texas struck down some anti-sodomy law. Griswold v. Connecticut was about contraception.

Some more good ones:

Gideon v. Wainwright. They made a good movie out of this one, Gideon's Trumpet starring Henry Fonda. The decision makes the gov't provide attorneys for poor people who can't afford their own.

Escobedo v. Illinois. The right to remain silent.

Miranda v. Arizona. John McCain's state. Established Miranda rights. Amazing to me this case was in 1966. Pretty recent.

Edwards v. Aguillard. In 1987, the court ruled Louisiana could not require teaching Creation Science alongside evolution.

Plessy v. Ferguson. 1896. Said "separate but equal" was OK. That's the one overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. Brown v. Board (1954) was argued by Thurgood Marshall, who became the first African American to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. He was replaced by Clarence Thomas, who never asks any questions and always votes however Scalia votes. What a disgrace.

And there's Texas v. Johnson from 1989, the one about flag burning.

Might I just add at this point how much I love Wikipedia.

[tclambert]

9. No specifics . . . ever

In a formulaic five paragraph essay (at the junior high level), the first paragraph summarizes your thesis, then you have three paragraphs discussing three different arguments or pieces of evidence supporting your thesis, and the last is the conclusion, in which you basically pat yourself on the back for having neatly proven your case. Palin only does two paragraph essays, maybe one and a half. She gives a paragraph one in garbled form, not much of a paragraph five, and leaves the other three blank. Sadly, this might net a C, in seventh grade.

[AspenRose]

11. She just said a whole lotta NUTHIN'

My goodness :crazy:

[DS1]

14. I could not have answered that question, but I would never ever accept the responsibility of VP

Such is the difference,

[JDPriestly]

18. If you were applying for a job that might position you to appoint

Supreme Court justices and you had professionals, experts preparing you for the interview, you would probably be able to answer that question.

[DS1]

24. I would need them, but I would take their help

because I would for damn sure be studying up hard.

Even then, I would bow out at every chance. I'm not the guy to be VP, neither is she.

[bluedeminredstate]

15. I got the willies just watching that.

I want to feel embarassed for her because she's making a damn fool of herself and I'm human, but then I think that she put herself there without "blinking" so she should squirm. Of course, the freepers will blame Katie for a gotcha question and blame Palin's lack of curiosity and "foundational" knowledge on the librul press.

[krkaufman]

17. That was just the most noticeable problem with Palin's response

Palin is literally saved by the bell. Couric and CBS let her off the hook, ending the segment with Palin unable to cite a single other Supreme Court decision besides Roe v Wade -- let alone one with which she might take issue.

But it should also be noted that Palin again demonstrated her inability for complex, abstract thought... responding to Katie Couric one moment that she believes that the US Constitution *does* have an inherent right to privacy -- which Couric emphasizes is at the core of the Roe v Wade decision -- and then saying in the next moment that abortion rights should be left up to the states. So the states should have the right to violate their citizens' Constitutional rights? Or maybe Palin just doesn't understand the function of the Constitution?

Gotta love her. What a meatbag of memorized soundbites and talking points.

[ann_american2004]

27. exactly

It's about the right to privacy. I wish that was mentioned more often.

[stoge18]

22. she forgot all about

Habeus v. Corpus and Ali v. Frazier

Seriously, what a sham..... How do you even offer up a defense of this? I wonder how Barrack feels when he sees this shit. I'll bet he feels honest to God, genuine sympathy for the girl.

[pitchforksandtorches]

23. Stop! In the Name of Love

WTF?
Doesn't she agree with the Supremes decisions to record these -
"Come See About Me" or "Reflections" ?

Let alone "Love Child" and "I'm Gonna Make You Love Me"!!!

For crying out loud.


Pitchforks and Torches Society
We The People Since 1776

[BeliQueen]

28. Let's not forget Baker vs. Exxon

that was just decided this year. Exxon's punitive damages for the Valdez incident were reduced to no more that actual damages.

This had to be huge in her state. For her not to know this and object to it is frightening--not just for the country but her current constituents.

Either she didn't know, or she thought of it and decided that it was politically more expedient not to mention it.

[Liberal_in_LA]

29. This is the cleaned up version. Heard the full version on radio where she lapses into silence for

a longer period and hems and haws more.