Take the VP Challenge: Can you name ANY SCOTUS decision other than Roe v Wade?

[I'm Cleo!]

If I didn't love my country, I would vote McCain/Palin just for the sheer entertainment value. Is there any way we can make them think they won and then make one of those follow-the-life-of-the-celebrity shows out of it?

Honestly, the closest thing to the Couric interviews that I can think of is the British Office, or maybe Extras. That cringe-inducing social awkwardness from Ricky Gervais is awfully similar to her "answers."

Cleo

 

[El_Machinae]

Maybe she can't disagree with Alaska vs. Exxon anymore since she switched teams. A Washington Republican is expected to think that was a good decision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H-26MOxH34

I can't even tell if she disagrees with that decision!

 

[illram]

I am outraged, OUTRAGED that Katie did not take Palin to task on her acceptance of liberal activist judges ridiculous right to privacy.

From John McCain.com

John McCain believes that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, John McCain will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.

Where is the right to privacy spelled out in the Constitution Sarah?!! WHERE! SHOW ME!!1! Dirty liberal!

 

[JollyRoger]

Where is the right to privacy spelled out in the Constitution Sarah?!! WHERE! SHOW ME!!1! Dirty liberal!

Same place that that dirty liberal Scalia pulled the right to self-defense from. Emanations and penumbras.

 

[Shylock]

Miranda v State of Arizona.

 

[NYHunter]

I'm terrible at remembering case names although many times when I see the case name I remember what it was about.

If I was running for national office I would definitely need a strong team of judicial advisors.

 

[illram]

Same place that that dirty liberal Scalia pulled the right to self-defense from. Emanations and penumbras.

But... but...McCain.com says they want to follow the law as written...and he wants more judges in the mold of Roberts... but Roberts agrees with the right to privacy that isn't written down...but *head explodes*

 

[emzie]

I think she can, but she is afraid to. She might name the "wrong" publication or the "wrong" case. She doesn't know enough to know the "right" or "wrong" answers in this situation, so she just gives non-answers.

Okay, I thought the same until...

“In one part of the interview, I asked her what newspapers and magazines she read before being asked to be John McCain’s running mate,” Couric said. “And she couldn’t name any. So again, I turned to the crew and I said, ‘Hold it, guys,’ and I went to the Governor privately and said, ‘Governor Palin, did you not understand the question? I’m asking you to name some newspapers or magazines you read. You can’t come up with any? I’m just trying to make sure you’re clear and to give you a fair shake here.’ And she said, ‘Okay. Nightline? Is that a magazine?’ I said, ‘No, that’s a television show.’ She said, ‘What about Lou Dobbs? Isn’t that a newspaper?’ And I said, ‘No, that’s a man. Lou Dobbs is a man.’ And there wasn’t much more I could do. I’m not a miracle worker.”

http://www.236.com/blog/w/jerome_halligan/couric_to_palin_do_you_know_we_9234.php

LOU DOBBS IS A MAN, NOT A PAPER.

Spoiler :

...and yes, it's fake but still.

 

[Trajan12]

I give up. This has become farcical. The fact that before I read the spoiler, I really believed it to be true, is pretty sobering...

 

[emzie]

I give up. This has become farcical. The fact that before I read the spoiler, I really believed it to be true, is pretty sobering...

It actually got me for about 5 minutes.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Palin is doing an interview on Fox now, and isn't nearly as bad as before. They repeated the Supreme Court question and she listed several cases.

(Of course, I'm sure the McCain campaign made her study up one those knowing such questions would be asked again.)

 

[JollyRoger]

They're turnin that poor small town girl into one of them ther Constitooshinal skolars? Told ya McCain was a librul.

 

[Neomega]

They're turnin that poor small town girl into one of them ther Constitooshinal skolars? Told ya McCain was a librul.

Palin: "OMG, there are 8 more amendments in the bill of rights?"

Like the way she answered the VP question last night. I guess they forgot to tell her she should try to distance herself from Cheney as well.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Palin is doing an interview on Fox now, and isn't nearly as bad as before. They repeated the Supreme Court question and she listed several cases.

(Of course, I'm sure the McCain campaign made her study up one those knowing such questions would be asked again.)

Or also likely is Fox News outright telling them that question would be asked so that she could study up on it. Or the McCain camp/Party leadership telling Fox to ask the question, handing Palin a pre-written answer on the subject, and her parroting it on air as a form of damage control.

What you've got to understand is that when she's on Fox News, she's not amongst real journalists. These are people paid to shill a specific party line. Propagandic mouthpieces. And part of their duty is to make the Republicans, in this case Sarah Palin, look good. And they will make every effort to do so and avoid every possibility for another gaffe.

That is the reason you're only really seeing her take interviews on Fox at the moment and why its quite likely that's the only place you'll see her. The McCain camp ain't even pretending anymore. She's not ready for primetime, they know it, and so they're keeping her in the same and cozy confines of fake news.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Fox actually isn't nearly as bad as it used to be. I much prefer CNN, but Fox has not been nearly as partisan as MSNBC lately.

and so they're keeping her in the same and cozy confines of fake news.

Any chance they'd be willing to go for real fake news, and have her go on The Daily Show or Colbert Report. That would be awesome.

 

[DNK]

Any chance they'd be willing to go for real fake news, and have her go on The Daily Show or Colbert Report. That would be awesome.

Well, Stewart can throw softballs easily, too. Then again, he did dig into Blair a good bit last week in a way I rarely see in interviews. I mean, the whole thing looked like it was going to break down half-way through.

But then the equally recent Clinton interview was "lets give Bill 15 minutes to spout off whatever he wants, all hail the king" basically. The contrast between the two interviews was... stunning.

So, it's really hit-or-miss on The Daily Show, and with Palin I get the feeling it would be miss.

Colbert doesn't get serious interviews since his Better Know a Rep died long ago. You can only make an ass out of the parties for so long before they cut you off and you're stuck with doing musical acts and "random side issue book woman". Too bad, those Better Know bits were some of the funniest things I've seen on TV ever. But I think Colbert would be far more likely to tear into her and pull off an "amazing" than Stewart. He doesn't seem to care about getting future interviews (which is one thing I love about him, and hate to an extent)

 

[.Shane.]

Um... let's not forget ... the Daily Show IS NOT A NEWS SHOW. You can't fault them for doing what CNN, et al, should be doing.

 

[DNK]

No ish, really? I thought it was CNN prime time. Is that why it's on Comedy Central and not CNN? Because it's comedy? I was confused, thanks.

 

[Berzerker]

The one I remember most from the Constitutional Law class I had (and really liked eventhough I am a science guy) is Baron v. Baltimore. It is from the 1700's I think but is still an operative principle.

It ruled that the Bill of Rights does not apply as a restriction on the states. I never knew this principle and it shocked me.

It was largely negated by the dual citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment but has been enforced inconsistently and piecemeal. For example, the states can violate our religious freedom with a "good reason" but ostensibly cannot respect an establishment of religion or interfere with the freedom of the press - the SCOTUS aint even consistent applying the same amendment.

That case may have been the catalyst for the Congress voting on this very matter in the early 1790s. The House voted to apply the BoR to the states but the Senate rejected the bill, back then the Senate was supposed to represent the states (as opposed to the people's House) and the states didn't want those restrictions. Among other matters, the 14th Amendment was supposed to prevent the states from violating our rights.

 

[Berzerker]

I wonder what Alaskan fishermen think about her failure to object to the 2008 decision in the Exxon Valdez case.

She did, thats the weird part... Apparently she expressed dis-satisfaction with the case just a few months before she was asked the question. Maybe she didn't mean it and was just pandering so she forgot ever "opposing" the decision. She aint impressing me with her honesty