Journal pudge's Journal: Sarah Palin and the Supreme Court 13
I talk a lot about the Supreme Court and its cases. While watching Palin late last night, I struggled for several seconds to come up with a Supreme Court case other than Roe I disagreed with. And if I were truly on the spot, maybe I wouldn't have come up with one at all. So why should I, a layman Supreme Court geek, hold it against Palin that she couldn't name one off the cuff?
I think my understanding of the Court -- which is much greater than most Americans -- is sufficient for anyone running for President or Vice President. So who cares?
I eventually came up with the recent "no executions for child rapists" case, only because I'd seen an article about it earlier in the day (the Court had just refused to hear a new case on the same subject). But why is it that I couldn't come up with the Kelo case, which I've read in its entirety, and have strongly disagreed with, and have written about, and have discussed many times?
It's how my brain works. Ask me my opinion on a specific case I disliked, and I can rattle it off, including the reasons why, and maybe even making specific references to the decisions, including who wrote which ones, who voted which way, and so on. But ask me to come up with some arbitrary decision I disagree with, and I'll struggle, because that is not how my brain catalogues things. I don't store them in "agree" and "disagree" folders in my mind. I imagine most people don't, including Palin.
The dumbest thing, though, is that people are attacking her for favoring a right to privacy, but being against Roe v. Wade (which is the same position I have, though I disagree with Palin, and many others, that abortion should be handled in the states). There are many reasons to be against Roe, and "privacy" is only one of them: most opponents of Roe would say that whether or not there is a right to privacy is irrelevant, since the question of the rights of the life in the womb isn't a question of privacy.
Joe Klein on CNN, incredibly and idiotically, said that she would be "drummed out of the Federalist Society" (were she in it) just for saying that. Now, this only shows that I know more than Joe Klein, because I distinctly remember that our current Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito both said during their recent hearings that they believe in a right to privacy, and they were both members of the Federalist Society.
I know this, and yet I couldn't easily, without thinking significantly about it, name a decision I disagreed with.
Biden was able to do so, because it was a case he actively worked on as part of his senatorial duties. Plus, he's a big nerd. But none of this reflects poorly on Palin in any way, it just shows she that she is not actively thinking about what cases she disagrees with.
Joe Klein and most other people complaining about this are being really stupid, and not merely because they don't understand the modern opposition to Roe, but because they do not understand that it means nothing of significance that she couldn't name a case she disagrees with off the top of her head.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Other than Roe... (Score:3, Informative)
... the other stinker for me recently is the Kelo case. Legalized thievery, pure and simple.
Quick, I'm... (Score:1)
I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100, what is Mrs. Palin?
Re: (Score:2)
42, of course--the answer to life, the universe, and everything. :-)
I can't name the cases, but I can list issues. (Score:2)
I can't name cases. But there are issues I have disagreed with the Court on. The case with the man arrested for not providing his name (Hibert?), the "Bong hits for Jesus" free speech case, and the emminent domain case where the community took the land and immediately resold it to a developer. Of course, I'm a conservative with a libertarian bent.
I don't have to struggle (Score:3, Insightful)
I struggled for several seconds to come up with a Supreme Court case other than Roe I disagreed with
Not me. Lessig v whoever where Lessig argued that "Bono" (the act that says copyright lasts longer than a human lifetime) was unconstitutional because the Constitution says that congress can grant copyrights and patents for "a limited time" and SCOTUS said "limited" means whatever the Congress says it means and pretty much told the EFF to "eff off".
With reasoning like that, the Constitution itself is meaningless. ANY word in the constitution therefore means whatever Congress says it means.
Of course, since my garage and car have both been searched without warrants, the garage by the local police and the car by the Feds (DEA and FBI) I guess the Constitution isn't mandatory anyway. Makes me wonder why I joined the service back during the Vietnam War, it sure wasn't to protect our rights. The Constitution has ceased to have meaning. We have the best government money can buy, and the best judges that bought politicians can appoint.
I say a pox on both their houses, I'm either voting Libertarian or Constitution (not that that their nominees are any better than the two mainstream corporate whores but it's at least a vote against the status quo, a protest vote.
Sorry, I'm in a bad mood today. I have three female roomates and I haven't gotten laid lately.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the thing. Maybe she couldn't name a specific case, but I would have felt better if she could name some issues.
Take the ball and run with it for Chriminy's sake. If you don't have the EXACT answer, give the best answer you have got that is pertinent.
If she would have argued specific issues like the eminent domain case (which is great for the Conservative side because it fits in with the whole "activist judges" mantra) she would have scored big even if she couldn't name it as "Kelo v. City of New L
Re: (Score:2)
This is the thing. Maybe she couldn't name a specific case, but I would have felt better if she could name some issues.
She did. So therefore you feel better? She talked about rulings that take away states' rights.
If she would have argued specific issues like the eminent domain case (which is great for the Conservative side because it fits in with the whole "activist judges" mantra) she would have scored big even if she couldn't name it as "Kelo v. City of New London".
That's the problem for me. Again, it makes her seem incurious.
Nonsense. As I already demonstrated, not being able to come up with more on a moment's notice means NOTHING. I could not come up with something right away wither; am I incurious?
You're exactly right (Score:2)
I've watched some youtube clips of this question as well as some other questions about foreign policy... answers that the media is claiming as 'gaffes.' I think what really is hurting her is how she comes across when she answers. I'm thinking specifically of a question she was asked on CBS about what her foreign policy experience was, and she just sort of wandered around talking about Putin and how Alaska was the first bit of American soil they'd fly over.
Now, when she was asked if she had met any foreign
Re: (Score:1)
An excellent point. She should respond: "You keep choosing to ask me things towards seeing how I compare to your typical Washington politicians. I'll save you some time -- the answer is I don't. I'm not at all like them. (And neither is my maverick running mate, blah blah blah..." I would make the point that experience doesn't guarantee better results, and use Biden's plan to divide and weaken (against Iranian influence) Iraq, as a good example of someone who's supposedly experienced in foreign policy, but
The other topic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Maybe it's a geek thing.
Sarah Palin is a geek! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, not buying it.