Palin on Supreme Court Decisions

October 2nd, 2008 By: Michael Merritt | Tags:

In the latest (and I believe last) segment of Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric to be released by CBS, Palin is asked which decisions by the Supreme Court she disagrees with, besides Roe vs. Wade.  Palin is unable to name any.

YouTube Preview Image

I’ll admit that I don’t know the names of all the cases that are out there, so I could see if she had trouble with that.  But not able to describe a case.  Even one?  I’ll name one.  Town of New London vs. Kelo.  I swear, I didn’t look it up before I wrote it here.  Maybe it’s because it came out of my state, I’m a little biased toward it, but it’s still a case.

Here’s the problem.  She’s about to debate Joe Biden tomorrow and I think it’s more than likely she’ll have to make the point that Biden and Obama shouldn’t be allowed to appoint “activist” judges to the bench.  I think she’ll need to make a convincing case should this happen, and knowing something about cases that have been previously decided by liberal-leaning justices.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Ora
    October 2nd, 2008 at 10:30
    Reply | Quote | #1

    She was asked which decision she disagreed with.  As governor she went on record for opposing supreme court decisions, but maybe she was afraid of a ‘gotcha’ question here. 

    Biden named a law he drafted which was struck down by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional.  He disagrees with the constitution?  Maybe the follow up question to him should have been: if there’s a bill you need to sign into law which you don’t agree with, but is mandated by the constitution, would you do it?

    (Palin has already done this, I suppose Biden has no experience with such decisions)

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.