Comments on We Are Voting Yes: Sarah Palin's Supreme Failure

The governor of Alaska should certainly be able to...

2008-10-04T12:16:57.630-04:00

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.

When Palin couldn't respond to the Bush Doctrine, ...

2008-10-01T22:27:49.112-04:00

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.

First - watch the clip, now that it is out - do yo...

2008-10-01T20:46:28.910-04:00

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?

I used Marbury v. Madison as an example... would y...

2008-10-01T20:17:36.021-04:00

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.

Matt - a few things.1) You said: "The point is - I...

2008-10-01T17:41:21.637-04:00

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.

In response to the newspaper question, Palin obvio...

2008-10-01T16:32:43.031-04:00

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.