-
Website
http://washingtonindependent.com/ -
Original page
http://washingtonindependent.com/10373/palin-now-a-supreme-court-scholar -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
She disagreed with one ruling because Louisiana’s “rights were taken away by the Supreme Court.” That means she doesn't have a clue of the role of the Supreme Court in our system -- not to mention the states' rights issue that most of us thought was resolved by the Civil War. Moreover, the case she cites didn't involve any right of the State of Louisiana; it was about the rights of the defendant. The constitution gives citizens --not state governments -- a right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
As to the eminent domain case, no one has ever suggested that the Court does not consider property rights to be "precious" -- all our rights under the Constitution are precious. But that doesn't mean that they cannot be limited; nor does it mean that the Court cannot determine whether a statute does/does not unconstitutionally infringe on them.
On the Exon Valdez case, I'd give her a little credit, though I doubt she understood the legal issues. I only regret that she was not being interviewed by someone who would have followed up by asking her if the result would have been different if Al Gore rather than George Bush had made the most recent Supreme Court appointments.
Though, this interview sounded a bit better, in reality it was as bad as (or worse than) the Katie Couric one. Palin again did her beauty pageant contestant trying to sound like she knows enough to answer a question while spouting nonsense thing, which is what we always see when Palin isn't reading or reciting something written for her by others.
The scary thing is that, presumably, Palin was coached on this question before the interview. So either: (1) Palin is not very smart &/or poorly educated; or (2) the McCain's staff coaching her are not very smart &/or poorly educated. In either case, this suggests that John McCain's judgment is not what we want in a president.
Palin's remarks demonstrate her utter failure to grasp the legal basis of these cases. And, this after she had several days to prep her answer.
Palin is totally clueless about our US Consititution (also demonstrated by her answer to Gwen Ifill's question about the VP's role) and it would be so dangerous to put her into this high office.
See my collection here http://www.ucubd.com/Index.aspx?id=776&tcid=3165