Wednesday, October 1, 2008

For Palin, Knowledge Of Supreme Court Cases Begins And Ends With Roe v. Wade

Katie Couric gave Sarah Palin the opportunity to display her legal knowledge with a line of questioning about Supreme Court cases. 

Palin stated that she's against Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling that overturned state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion and was based on an inherent constitutional right to privacy. After Palin agreed that such a right existed, Couric pointed out that that right is the cornerstone of Roe v. Wade. Palin ignored the distinction.

More startling was Palin's inability to name one Supreme Court ruling with which she disagreed. Granted, this was a tougher question than the one in which she was asked to name one magazine or newspaper she reads. Still, someone aspiring to the vice presidency ought to be able to name at least as many cases as a junior high school social student would learn in social studies.

As it was, asked which other rulings besides Roe v. Wade she disagreed with, Palin eventually mentioned...Roe v. Wade:

"Well, let's see. There's, of course, in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are, those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but...."

Asked yet again for an example, Palin showed again that she just doesn't "do" specificity:

"Well, I could think of, of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."

Palin must believe that the more words she weaves around an issue, the more she'll appear knowledgeable. It isn't working.

1 comment:

dave48103 said...

I guess the Supreme Court decision from earlier THIS YEAR that slashed Exxon's award in the Valdez case must have slipped her mind. And why not, it's not as if it's probably the most significant Supreme Court case ever to affect Alaska directly. Oh, wait. Or could it be she didn't want to bring it up because the three most liberal judges dissented from the decision. Maybe she's smarter than we think . . . naaaah