Posts
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Sarah Palin's Supreme Failure
Chalk this up to another unreal turn in the Sarah Palin Saga. Apparently, we are about to see the mother of all revelations from the Katie Couric interview: that the Republican vice presidential nominee is incapable of commenting on a Supreme Court decision apart from Roe v. Wade. Note: this post has been updated with the release of the video.
Buried on the third page of Howard Kurtz's "Media Notes" column published yesterday, Kurtz quotes anonymous sources, stating "CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely be embarassing." We likely saw one of them today - Palin walking with Couric, after slamming Joe Biden from the stump on his age and experience, and her later comments about what newspapers she reads. Palin also makes alarming statements about abortion rights for victims of rape and incest. She also speaks of her belief that her friend chose to be gay. You can watch the full video here*:
Watch CBS Videos Online
And apparently, we have yet to see it all.
Sources have told Jonathan Martin, who reports yesterday on his blog, CBS is holding an ace in the hole - footage of Palin failing to give any response at all when asked to comment on a Supreme Court case apart from Roe v. Wade. No verbal acrobatics, no attempts to answer - just silence. Assuming Martin's sources are correct - which I have little doubt they are - I will post this video as soon as it is available. UPDATED: view the video here. Apparently Palin does try and answer the question, after initial silence.
Watch CBS Videos Online
This is perhaps the most damning footage of Sarah Palin yet. If - for whatever, god unknown reason based upon what we've seen - you still had any doubt about whether Palin is capable of running the country, this seals the deal. And I'm not even going to touch her statements about the Constitution protecting the right to privacy immediately after stating Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
To begin with, you cannot be Vice President of the United States of America without being able to recall at least one of the following: Plessy v. Ferguson, Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, the Dred Scott case, or even Bush v. Gore. Surely she should be able to discuss one of these in the abstract, about how these cases caused divides and disagreements throughout the United States. But let's give Sarah Palin a break. She doesn't really study "history" or "political theory" or "law" or "civics." She can see Russia from her state, even though she's never bothered to visit the spot where it is visible. She's a maverick. Who needs those journalistic "gotcha" questions anyway?
Well, when you're governor of Alaska, you have to be able to comment on the most important Supreme Court decision ever to directly impact your state - the recently decided Exxon Shipping Co v. Baker, ruled upon on June 25th of this year. You can read the opinion here. The case dealt with punitive damages in a lawsuit filed by 33,000 fishermen, Native Alaskans and landowners for the spill. A jury had awarded the group $5 billion dollars; on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, that amount was slashed to $2.5 billion. The United States Supreme Court further lowered that amount to $500 million with this decision - which was seen as a defeat for the people of Alaska impacted by the spill. The Washington Post reports on the case here.
This decision took nearly 20 years, and involved the most disastrous domestic oil spill in North American history - the Exxon Valdez, the impact of which is felt to this day. Studies from the University of North Carolina in 2003 show that the spill is still having dramatic effects on the state's shorelines and wildlife. Parts of the Alaskan tourism industry have yet to recover. And Alaska's fishing industry took dramatic hits.
Sarah Palin is governor of Alaska.
In fact, I'll say it again. Sarah Palin is GOVERNOR OF ALASKA.
Let's put this in perspective: 33,000 litigants is equal to 5% of the population of Alaska (with a total of 626,932 citizens, according to the 2000 census). This is a huge deal there. But if that isn't enough for you?
The Blog of Legal Times (BLT) reports that Todd and Sarah Palin could have been plaintiffs in the case, but missed the February filing deadline. After all, Todd Palin is a lifelong commercial fisherman. It is likely that the Palin family was directly impacted by the spill. The entire article on BLT is worth reading - they go on to report that Sarah Palin commented on the case in June, calling the decision "tragic." Watch one of her responses on the evening news:
You be the judge - does she sound fully informed on the court case at the time it was decided? Does she give substantive responses to these questions? Sarah Palin doesn't once mention any legal principle that would give her cause to criticize the decision. She doesn't offer any insight into the court opinion. In my read, she simply recites the facts, and expounds upon her current relationships with big oil - but that's another discussion. At least she knew enough to answer some basic questions about the case.
And now, not even four months later, Sarah Palin can't comment on ANY case to Katie Couric? Not only can she not comment, she can't muster any response at all? On a question that was even teed up for her - "what other Supreme Court cases do you disagree with?" Nothing? Not the case you vocally disagreed with just a few months ealier? Buehler? Buehler...? (SIDENOTE: this article by Ben Stein is fantastic and highly recommended as an easy to understand summation of the financial crisis)
You can believe one of two things here: 1) Sarah Palin froze up and couldn't recover, feeling under pressure from Couric and became incapable of recalling anything when put on the spot, or 2) Sarah Palin doesn't know enough about any Supreme Court case - and perhaps even how the legal system functions - to discuss why she disagrees with an opinion. And frankly, I don't think it matters which you choose to believe. If Palin can't think on her feet well enough to recall huge legal events in her own state, how can we reasonably expect her to represent our interests to a hostile Congress, or even worse, the rest of the world?
Folks, I'm sorry, but it is not elitist to expect the Vice President of the United States of America to be able to comment on a Supreme Court decision in a softball interview. Not only should she know her history, she should damn well be able to comment on the major affairs of her own state. This was a carefully controlled and orchestrated outing with a handpicked interviewer.
There are no longer any excuses for Sarah Palin. This should not and can not stand.
Sarah Palin should take the advice of Kathleen Parker and step down. She won't, but she should. It would be putting country first.
****
*NOTE: It seems CBS is a bit overloaded on their bandwidth, as the videos don't appear to be loading properly. I checked the CBS website, and they aren't loading properly there either. I assume if you check back later they will be up and running.
Submit This Article!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
In response to the newspaper question, Palin obviously froze... however, I don't think her freezing is as sinister or damaging as you make it out to be. Let's say Palin cites the WSJ or the NY Times. If she cites something conservative like the WSJ, Couric likely will ask Palin to name her favorite columnist or to expand on why she reads it. I, who read the WSJ everyday, can't name a single columnist or anything specific within the paper - I just read that paper in the morning for market news and get on with my day. Second, if she chooses a liberal paper like the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. Couric could ask a question similar to the one above or if Couric drops the subject Palin may be scolded by much of the Republican base for reading liberal propaganda. Lastly, if she names a small paper from Alaska then the media will dig deep to find something awful the paper wrote years ago and attach it to Palin or people like yourself will chastise her for being smalltown or inexperienced. So I'm not sure if she just forgot or made a conscious decision not to answer the question. Second, what does it matter? Who cares what Palin reads? Maybe Palin doesn't read any paper. She must be an idiot then!!! But think of it this way - I read only a handful of things through college but I turned out alright. I can write sentences and even form thoughts. It's amazing. I learn through people speaking to me. I don't learn through reading. Maybe Palin learns current events from her advisors. The point is - If she proves she knows current events, who cares how she gains this knowledge.
Regarding homosexuality - She's religious. Everyone knows this, yet you act shocked by Palin's response. There's enormous disagreement among many people concerning whether homosexuality is a choice, cultural or genetic. Accordingly, you'd be amazed at the percentage of the population believes homosexuality is a choice. I'm not saying I subscribe to this theory, I'm just saying you can't be so nonchalant and dismissive when you can't point to conclusive evidence in the other direction. In other words, your words on this subject just suggest a viewpoint disagreement rather than an actual problem.
Lastly, in regards to your jurisprudential argument... While I think it is important for a VP to have SCOTUS jurisprudence knowledge, I can't help feel as if it ultimately doesn't matter. Sure I can sit here and spout off SCOTUS cases more than 99% of America but what does that prove? That I paid attention in law school or that I like the law - It proves nothing more. Why is naming a case important? For instance let's take Marbury v. Madison, which provides the origin for judicial review. Having knowledge of the origins of judicial review is important because...? Do you honestly believe that Palin doesn't the understand the concept of judicial review. She's Governor of Alaska, meaning she knows that the courts can overturn a law. I bet if you ask her that question she'll respond with a yes. However, Palin might not know the origin of this power but once again, what does it matter? Who cares whether she can cite the specific origin? I guess you struck a nerve with me because I'm a student who graduated with honors from a top 5 law school but during final exams could never remember the names of the cases - I knew the principles and could apply them - Just as I believe Palin knows about judicial review - But, similar to Palin, in those crucial moments on an exam I always forgot the names of the case. So who cares whether she froze on the spot. That doesn't make her any less Presidential as long as she can formulate the principles.
Matt - a few things.
1) You said: "The point is - If she proves she knows current events, who cares how she gains this knowledge."
When is Palin going to prove this to us, and how?
I don't necessarily think the whole newspaper thing is cataclysmic, but seriously, you don't think it is important that Palin is able to provide some measure of proof that she's been paying attention to world affairs? She certainly isn't instilling confidence in that fact given her answers on the topic. Sure - there are other ways to learn about the world than from reading the newspaper, but what evidence have we seen that Sarah Palin has done that? She hasn't traveled, she didn't study foreign affairs, and she's been a national political figure for less than two months. Her advisers schooled her completely on the ways of the world that quickly?
Small note - I didn't comment on the newspaper question in regard to her freezing up. That was in regard to the yet unreleased interview question about the Supreme Court, which I'll get back to in a second...
2) I never made any judgment or comment on Palin's views on homosexuality, apart from saying that I think we've seen the clip that will contain the embarrassing moments. In looking back - perhaps that was unclear. She gave cogent responses to those questions; I was simply noting her answers. The embarrassing section of the interview was clearly the combination of the experience section and the newspaper section.
3) Regarding SCOTUS...so many things I could say. You're going to defend the fact that Sarah Palin couldn't come up with the case that directly impacted 5% of her state's population? I don't need her to be able to wax poetic about a ton of cases - but it isn't be unreasonable to expect her - Alaska's chief executive - to be able to speak about issues directly impacting her constituency. Even if she froze, she should have been able to come back to Exxon v. Baker as a case that she dealt with directly in the course of running Alaska. If she can't, why can't she? Because she can't handle the pressure, or because she simply doesn't know?
And Matt, I could ask a seventh grader if the courts can overturn a law, and most of them would probably get the answer right. That is simply not an acceptable knowledge threshold to be Vice President of the United States of America.
I used Marbury v. Madison as an example... would you honestly have me rather used Brown or Plessy? Those would have been even easier.
Regarding Exxon v. Brown. Did you read the case? I did. The case is pertinent to Alaska but its greater impact is on punitive damages abroad. As a Governor - Who cares if she knows the Court's reasoning because the precedent isn't getting overturned soon - What matters is if she knew the impact of the case... which I bet she did.
First - watch the clip, now that it is out - do you think Sarah Palin understands Roe v. Wade, after saying that the Constitution protects a right to privacy?
Second - yes, I've read the opinion. Do you think Sarah Palin has? While the legal impact may ultimately be upon punitive damages abroad - I'm not an attorney, and I can't speak to that - the direct impact from the decision is that a whole mess of Alaskan citizens saw their settlement payments dramatically reduced. Those are her citizens and her constituents.
To say the case is only "pertinent" to Alaska ignores the direct impact the Exxon Valdez spill had on the people of Alaska. The entire case is based on the most significant event to happen to Alaska since statehood. The fact of the matter is that this case impacts her state. I expect her to have a greater command of the issues. If that is unreasonable, then consider me unreasonable.
But above all - WHY COULDN'T SHE REFER TO THIS WHEN ASKED DIRECTLY ABOUT ANOTHER CASE SHE DISAGREED WITH? Why didn't she discuss common maritime law in her interview when the case was decided, if she disagreed with the court? Why didn't she discuss why the court shouldn't have limited punitive damages in this case? Do you think Sarah Palin understands the case as well as you do?
When Palin couldn't respond to the Bush Doctrine, we may give her the benefit of the doubt that the Doctrine was a multifaceted document that may have warrented clarification.
When Palin effectively agreed with Obama re: attacking terrorist targets in Pakistan, we can give her benefit of the doubt because she was speaking instinctually, using reason that makes sense, even if for the wrong reasons.
But seriously, anyone who has sat through a few years of high school social studies can at least name one case, even if they don't know or understand the decision.
Should the GOP win, and something happened to McCain, which is not an unrealistic senario, she is incredibly dangerous. As mentioned, if she freezes in interviews, she'll look like a deer in the headlights with major decisions.
I'm sure she excelled as governor in Alaska. Her state population is 1% of the size of New York City. Her "joe-six pack" image would have appeal when there aren't many points of views to contend with in a small homogenous Alaskan community. Her reach just falls short when trying to expand beyond that demographic.
The governor of Alaska should certainly be able to name the case in which she touted the amicus brief filed by the state. If you're going to go on record with SCOTUS as supporting the losing side of a particular case, you should probably be able to recall that case.
As an Alaskan, I can tell you she's not stupid... she's just not intellectually curious. And she's not used to being asked hard questions.
Also, she doesn't really care about Darfur. But that's a whole other ball of wax.
Post a Comment