But at least she didn't blink- you know with paint on eyes it's hard to.

Just hold her to the same standards as you would anyone else. Thats all

I don't think "volunteer" is adequate. It looks to me like she had long desired the office. Ordinary mortals, aware of their limitations, would shy away from loony requests to be a septuagenarian dingbat's running mate. Palin didn't. She deserves all the humiliation she can get: her vanity is a threat to the country and the world.

WHISTLEBLOWER REVEALS GOP PLAN TO STEAL NEXT ELECTION FOR MCCAIN!

"Here, in this shattering new interview, Stephen Spoonamore goes into harrowing detail about the Bush regime's election fraud, past, present and--if we don't spread the word right now--to come. Since he's the only whistle-blower out there who knows the perps themselves, and how they operate, we have to send this new piece far and wide." (Rawstory.com)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lrFkRHrRDI

Ok, this just occurred to me, and I think it's a helpful indicator (if we really needed another one) of what kind of automaton Sarah Palin is.

Remember in her convention speech she mocked Obama for wanting to "read terrorists their rights?" K, that was most obviously a jab at habeas corpus, but its also a direct reference to another Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, where the court actually set the requirement for law enforcement to read any and all suspects their rights upon arrest.

Miranda is one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in the U.S. History. It doesn't have the same base-rallying power of Roe v. Wade, but it is inarguably more important. It requires that governments do not capriciously arrest and terrorize its citizens. That seems like an important one to know.

I knew she didn't write that speech, but I was holding on to some vague hope that she actually understood what the sentences she was reading meant.

"Brown vs. Board of Education, Bush vs. Gore, Plessy vs. Ferguson, and Dred Scott"

Those are good ones, but how about Hamdan v Rumsfeld? That was pretty recent and certainly a landmark decision. It was also quite controversial, so Palin should remember it. I know it was four years ago, but have our memories really become this bad?

I struggled myself, but came up with the DC gun ban case (agreed with the decision) and the statute of limitations on equal pay discrimination lawsuits (disagree. if the cases are even legit, why are they no longer legit at 61 days? (or whatever the actual cutoff was. I remember it was absurdly stingy. ) That said, if a MAN gets 72 cents on the dollar for the same job another man does, why is he S.O.L. because he has a Y chromosome? Companies pay as little as they dare to everyone.)

Bush/Gore was a good one that escaped me for no good reason.

Dredd Scott? I would have made fun of her if she brought THAT chestnut out of the attic.

I thought of the gun ban... the pay equality case I thought of after 10 seconds which is an eternity on TV air time. If Palin got vapor lock and thus got nervous, maybe I'm not too worried?

(Not for this one thing, anyway.)

She couldn't even throw out the Dred Scott case, which, when you consider it is often used as a dog-whistle for anti-abortion groups, is especially pathetic.

I was thinking the same thing when I heard this bit of info. Anyone (with a college degree) should know the big SC cases, as you note in the post. But how about Miranda vs. Arizona (Miranda warning), Miller vs. California (obscenity), hell, just go back 2-3 years and pick out Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld or Heller vs. DC.

I mean, doesn't this woman read the paper?

Those are good ones, but how about Hamdan v Rumsfeld?

Or Marshall v Marshall, where Anna Nicole was really, really hot.

Yeah, Palin's problem is her own reputation.

I myself can only name a handful of cases, sometimes only by short hand (Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, Griswold, Dred Scott, for example), so I am not really a braniac either on this score.

But Palin has proven herself to be a braniac on ... nothing whatsoever, aside from reading a teleprompter ... so this is just additional evidence. If she had proven to be an intellectual juggernaut, this would have not been a story. But it is a story because it supports the facts on the ground (she is a mental midget).

It should be noted that not only did she volunteer for this gig, she came out swinging - her nomination speech being one big sneering FU to the Democrats in general and Obama in particular.

Granted, she didn't write the speech, but no one held a gun to her head and made her read it. She could have told the MCain speechwriters that she didn't like the tone, this doesn't work for me, rewrite it. However, from what I can tell, it was EXACTLY her tone, and she approved this message. Problem is, she didn't realize that she was a big fish in a VERY little pond. The aggression that worked so well for her in Alaska can only take you so far on the national stage. It's like taking the toughest guy at your local bar - the one nobody messes with - and putting him in the ring with the heavyweight champion of the world (for the sake of metaphor, let's just pretend that professional boxing isn't a sad shadow of what it once was). Everything goes just fine, until the local takes the first one on the chin.

It's always ugly to watch someone get their ass well and truly kicked, but don't forget how much that local loved beating the hell out of everyone at the pub.

This makes that article in Newsweek even funnier- a little while ago (cover date September 22, so it was probably really two or three weeks ago) a Newsweek article suggested Palin should be on the Supreme Court. I think it might have been a joke, but I'm afraid it was serious (an entire sarcastic article seems unusual for Newsweek).

"She deserves all the humiliation she can get"

I feel no pity for her. She lies repeatedly with out concience. Her convention speech was caustic and belittling and she showed no discomfort, her record (or antics) as Governor and Mayor don't suggest a person with high scruples. She deserves all the humilation she gets. She also doesn't seem bothered by at all by any of this. She makes an ass of herself everytime she opens her mouth and she doesn't even flinch...and let me tell you, that's the sign of a dangerous person to put in a position of power.

Thankfully, the McCain campaign is an official freak show now. I'm guessing after the election John McCain will retire and enjoy his senility in his various homes. Sarah Palin will land a tv job.

DJ@1.37p - why does Dredd Scott have anything to do with abortion? Excuse my ignorance, but I thought it had to do with slaves and slave states. How does the pro-life groups use it?

I'm no attorney but Brown v. Bd and Gore v. Bush are two biggies.

I can give other cases, but not by name. I can also intelligently discuss them, their merits and why I support or do not support each.

Which I think is by far and away more than Ms. Palin could do.

She *IS* the Anna Nicole of our political discourse.

How freaking embarrassing. For ALL of us!

As in the post Brown v. Board of Education was the first that popped to my mind that she should have remembered. There are others, however, that should be easy for any person interested in current events, history, or government should know. Bush v. Gore would have been an easy opinion to mention and would not have required a great intellect or understanding to at least recall the Supreme Court did influence the election in 2000. She could have channeled government 101 and mentioned a pinnacle Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison. Silence?

But, on another level, Palin could not even identify key Supreme Court opinions regarding her pet issue - abortion. Palin did not mention Planned Parenthood v. Casey wherein Sandra Day O'Connor vote provided the issue of precedent as an impediment to overturning Roe v. Wade. Palin could not mention Griswold v. Connecticut regarding birth control which is at the center of privacy rights and is what Joe Biden used to bring down the nomination of Bork.

Someone who truly is committed to the conservative social causes would know these things.

Palin is not only a farce for her general lack of knowledge, she is a lightweight lackey for the own social agenda she embodies.

Well Katie - Marbury v. Madison. I think we have a real separation of powers issue there that needs to revisited. John and I want to finish what Bush started. Just sayin.

These comments assume this video exists...

As with the Bush Doctrine, yes, the average person probably can't name many Supreme Court cases and, frankly, I don't care (other than it is a reflection on the lack understanding of the American people of their own government). Palin is not running for a job of "average person"; she's running for a position where, if bad things happen, she may end up nominating the individuals that make these decisions. It should be a minimal job requirement that she should have at least a tiny bit of knowledge of Supreme Court history. It's not all that dissimilar to pro sports. There are tons of fans of any given football team, for instance, but I can promise you that most wouldn't be able to tell you the ins and outs of a particular offensive or defensive strategy. However, if their team hired a coach who didn't know the difference a wishbone or an I-formation, they'd go nuts!

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell

This has to be #2 on the religious rights most hated court cases. It's got it all, religious leader desecration, pornography, the flag, and most importantly, a Hollywood DVD.

Oh, give me a break. Anyone aspiring to national office ought to know the three big cases on race relations: Dred Scott, Plessey, and Brown. And how about Bush v. Gore? Marbury v. Madison? And a state governor just might be expected to understand why interest on state and local bonds is tax exempt: McCollough v. Maryland. I'm not asking for much. You are saying that a major party candidate for VP need not even know what any A student in high school civic knows? You set a low bar indeed. This idea of dumbing things down has gone WAY too far.

Confucius says - better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Maybe Palin had Chinese food for lunch and finally got some good advice.

why does Dredd Scott have anything to do with abortion? phoebes in santa fe

Both Dred Scott and Roe/Wade were justified using the concept of individual rights. Right wingers like to compare the pregnant mother with the slave owner, in both cases denying the rights of the subordinate. Not my opinion, just and answer to the question.

Despite being a self-proclaimed expert on energy, she also apparently couldn't remember the Supreme's slap at punitive damages in the Exxon Valdes case. And that was last term, and there is video on the web with her reaction. Must be the meth damage.

While I'm sure "Plenty of members of Congress don't actually know a damn thing about Supreme Court history or details about particular decisions..." that doesn't mean I'd want any of them as my representative. Fail.

And someone on another blog pointed out there have been a few SC decisions that involved Alaskans or the state of Alaska recently, some while she's been governor. If she'd've spouted off about even one of those, she would've looked knowledgeable.

Sarah Palin had complete agency in this situation. At no point was she robbed of the option to say, "Sorry, I'm not going to sign on to your sinking ship as VP." Whenever anyone in national politics starts blabbering about the Supreme court, or activist vs. strict constructionist judges, they're basically trying to dog-whistle their support/opposition to choice. That always boils down to Roe. The difference is that Palin hasn't had the opportunity to pick up the veneer of credibility that being able to cite any other case might give another candidate.

I have trouble accepting that Roe vs. Wade is the only court decision she knows of!!!

As an Evangelical, she should have know about Griswold vs. Connecticut! All true 'Right to Life' people know that overturning Roe vs. Wade is only the starting point to overturning Griswold vs. Connecticut.

But then again, only the really hard core Evangelicals will publicly admit they are after the Griswold decision.

For those who do not know of Griswold, it is the decision that established a 'zone of privacy' for individuals from the supremes' reading of other parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The origin was police in Connecticut 'window peeping' to catch people illegally using birth control (condoms). Without the Griswold decision, states would be allowed to prevent the distribution of birth control pills and devices. Without the Griswold decision, police would be allowed to 'window peep' to catch people 'breaking the law'.

I don't expect her to know a lot of cases, I don't even expect her to know the names, but if true this is truly absurd.

As many above has mentioned, there are certain cases that are simply a part of the culture at large -- Brown v Board first and foremost, with Miranda a close second (particularly since she referenced it in her speech). Ledbetter is a gimme because she was at the Dem Convention and Obama is running ads about her case!

And given her alleged ideological bent, to be effective she should surely know the key abortion cases - Griswold as predecessor, Casey re Undue Burden, and the intact dilation and extraction cases.

It might also be reasonable for a party opposed to affirmative action to be able to at least mention "the Michigan admissions" or "Seattle desegregation" cases even if she can't name them. Or Bakke, one of the key building blocks for the right's strategy.

Bush v Gore seems obvious. The Exxon Valdez and other punitive damages caps cases should be close to Palin's heart. The Gun Control, Gitmo, Death Penalty, and Sentencing Guidelines cases have all been huge news the past 3 terms for anyone showing the slightest interest in national issues.

Given that she is running for Veep, the Cheney energy task force records case is one she might be expected to know. In a time of armed conflict and dissent at home, the Pentagon Papers case perhaps? US v. Nixon? The "Japanese-American Internment case"? Really, she doesn't have to know the names - it isn't a gotcha - but show a little knowledge of the issues that are in play when you are appointing justices!

Heck, given the fight over quasi-nationalization of the investment banks, even good old Youngstown Sheet and Tube.

There are many others key to major right-wing issues - Adarand (affirmative action in government contracting), Yoder (religious freedom in education), Gore v BMW (punitive damages), Lopez (states rights, commerce clause, gun penalty enhancements), various obscenity cases (ALA v Reno on the Communications Decency Act, for example) etc etc etc.

I don't expect her to know inside baseball stuff on procedure, or older stuff, or obscure law school exam stuff but really anyone with any professed interest in government and politics should have a passing, conversational ability to talk for a few minutes about court cases generally.

As a strict constructionist who believes in the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, Sarah probably agrees that all of these court decisions are immoral, illegal, and irrelevant to what the court should be deciding.

Now, can we go back to no women voters and blacks being equal to 3/5th of a white person!!!

It may be fair to observe that many members of Congress can't name anything outside their own district or state, but then again Palin isn't running to represent Alaska or Tampa, Florida, she's running to represent the entire United States. With that in mind, how many people in Congress are qualified to be president?

Oh, god I hope Katie asked her to spell potato

Don't feel too sorry for her -- she volunteered for this gig.

She volunteered and she wants to do some very Un-American things to Americans if she gets elected. She deserves all the shaming she gets. Her and the McCain she rode in on.

That's Just What I Said

Don't cry for me, Argentina!

I'm not a high-ranking government official; just someone who paid attention in Grade 10 History, and I came up with your group (Brown vs. Board of Education, Bush vs. Gore, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Dred Scott) as well as Loving vs. Virginia, Marbury vs. Madison, Griswold vs. Connecticut, Miranda vs. Arizona, the Bakke case, and Nixon and the Tapes. All of them are supremely (no pun intended) relevant to the government and laws we have now. How anyone could graduate from high school -- let alone five colleges -- without knowing at least some of them is a sad statement about our education system.

Don't feel too sorry for her -- she volunteered for this gig.

Feeling sorry for someone who sells themselves as a twit?
Then you must read this editorial from Anchorage Daily News regarding Palin's debating tactics:

http://www.adn.com/opinion/sarah-palin/story/539459.html

Thanks, danp@2.07p - I wasn't making the connection.

True, a great many elected officials would be hard-pressed to name a single important Supreme Court ruling since Roe vs. Wade, and in that sense Sarah Palin is being held to a higher standard.

One of the perks of being a candidate for Vice President.

Without knowing the names I could still find the Alaskan high schooler who took his 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' free speech campaign all the way there. And he was from her home state! And it was only last year!!

Sheesh.

It also cracks me up that neither her "intensive prep" nor her Palinator3000 Buzzword Generator would have failed to come up with a few buzzwords to spit out on the topic.

Well ya know Katie, this is how I, and every American I talk to view it. Blah blah blah Strict Contructionists blah blah Legislating From The Bench blah blah blah 2nd Amendment. I came here to make some changes. Blah. Blah. Gotcha journalism.

She won't have to understand the Supreme Court to pick it's new members.

Sure, but casually throwing out Brown v. Board or Plessy or Dred Scott could have been a minefield. What if she says something that makes it sound as if she endorses segregation? What if she gets Brown and Plessy mixed up and accidentally endorses "separate but equal"?

The McCain campaign is loath to admit mistakes. When McCain accidentally called the Prime Minister of Spain an enemy, he refused to own up to the gaffe, and essentially said, "I meant to do that".

Fortunately, none of this matters for the debate on Thursday.

The format is question - Biden or Sweet Sarah answers and then the other answers. No followup questions and no discussion between dear Sarah and the Senator from MasterCard.

With the additional debate preparation that Mrs. Palin is undergoing, all she had to do is memorize 15 - 20 talking points and attacks and decide which of them to use to answer the questions. There is no requirement that she actually answer the question asked and there will be no followup by Ifil. If Biden trys to point out that Sarah has not answered the question asked, it would obviously be sexist of him and we would have to spend the next week pointing that out!

Watch for our advertising on Thursday morning explaining that Sarah won the debate!

What is sad is that I don't expect her to offer this long discourse on Supreme Court cases and their impact on the development of America. However, if she can't even mention the Brown decision at a minimum (and she should be able to come up with a few more), she needs to go back to Alaska and sue the school system she took her civics class in. She is running to be the next Vice-President of the United States not the county dog catcher.

I don't feel a bit sorry for her. The more she stumbles and stammers on TV, the longer the gauntlet of Gotcha journalism she's going to have to run, because journalists and media only care about what makes a good story and draws a crowd. For differing reasons, many areas of society are interested in watching Palin squirm - one side with consternation, the other with delight. Either way, she's great for ratings.

If this is the kind of product Jerusalem Joe Lieberman turns out after weeks of intensive prepping, he ought to think about another line of work, because he blows as a briefer.

You all are kidding me, right?

What about the Exxon Valdez case that was decided on a little over THREE MONTHS ago. Sarah Palin disagreed with the decision and appeared in interviews on the record opposing the decision.

She couldn't remember THAT? WTF!!?

Here's the link:

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

As further explanation, my understanding is that Couric asked if, besides Roe v. Wade, there were any other Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with. Harder than just naming one, but in light of the Exxon Valdez decision that she opposed THREE MONTHS AGO, s/b a softball for her.

What a numbnuts she is!

I don't really care if Palin knows the names of Supreme Court decisions. But if Palin is not even able to BS an answer on one of the many landmark Supreme Court decisions, how are we to believe that she understands the enormous role the courts play in American government? Does she know anything about how judicial review has helped change our country? If not, can we expect her to have a credible opinion on how much the Supreme Court should be able to shape the law? Am I to believe that she has an opinion on any of the theories of constitutional interpretation, or that she could use her understanding of constitutional law when deciding which judges she should nominate for appointment to the Court if, God forbid, she were ever in that position?

Anyone qualified to actually pick a Supreme Court justice should be able to spit out the names of at LEAST a handful of Supreme Court cases...

P.S. As a sidenote...shouldn't a woman with a degree in journalism be able to talk a little about the freedom of the press? Even though I doubt many journalists would remember the names "Near v. Minnesota" or "Pentagon Papers," they'd probably be able to discuss the rulings in a general sense. I hope...?

Don't feel too sorry for her -- she volunteered for this gig.

Abso-friggin-lutely!

How can you pretend to be any kind of serious conservative and not know about Kelo v. City of New London?

Left_but_Right makes a great point - in any decent J school they teach (a) Pentagon Papers and (b) NY Times v. Sullivan. Maybe she was hunting moose those days?

Left_but_Right said "Anyone qualified to actually pick a Supreme Court justice should be able to spit out the names of at LEAST a handful of Supreme Court cases..."

All that is required for Sarah to pick new supremes is for her to know the phone number of Pat Robertson! Scratch that, she doesn't even need to know that much - they will call her and tell her who to appoint.

What about:

Godzilla v. Mothra
Old Darren v. New Darren
Smelt it v. Dealt it
Shirts v. Skins
Pepsi v. Coke

Talk about stupid!

Remember: No secular Supreme Court decisions in the Bible. So why should she read about them?

Remember: No secular Supreme Court decisions in the Bible. So why should she read about them?

"why does Dredd Scott have anything to do with abortion? phoebes in santa fe

Both Dred Scott and Roe/Wade were justified using the concept of individual rights. Right wingers like to compare the pregnant mother with the slave owner, in both cases denying the rights of the subordinate. Not my opinion, just and answer to the question."

It also goes to the question of stare decisis. Lots of Republican women don't think that Roe should be or can be overturned. But it can.

kramer vs. kramer?

You get the sense listening to Sarah Palin that she's running for a leadership position in the National Cosmetology Association (no insult to the NCA intended).

Good political leaders inform us and move discussions about important public policy issues forward. After I listen to Sarah Palin I feel like I do after wasting a half hour watching a stupid sitcom on TV -- like I have to do something to make up for all the stupid ideas I let pass between my ears.

"why does Dredd Scott have anything to do with abortion? phoebes in santa fe

Dred Scott held that slaves were not "persons" as described in the Constitution, and had no right to use the courts to redress their grievences. The underlying rationale of Roe v. Wade is that an unborn child is not a "person" pursuant to the 14th Amendment, and thus does not have the right to life described therein. Certain pro-life people equate the decisions as improper denials of personhood.

"why does Dredd Scott have anything to do with abortion? phoebes in santa fe

The Dred Scott case held that slaves were not "persons" and had no constitutional rights. The underlying rationale of Roe v. Wade is that an unborn fetus is not a "person" as defined in the 14th Amendment, and therefore does not have the right to life described therein. Certain anti-abortion people equate the two cases as improper denials of "personhood."

palin claims to have been listening to joe biden's speeches when she was in the second grade but could not cite a single supreme court case or ruling.

why would a good republican, from a die-hard republican family, be following a democratic senator so closely from such a young age? someone should ask her which of biden's speeches were most meaningful to her.

once again, a lie when the truth is just as effective (and would at this point be a novelty in the mccain-palin campaign).

If she weren't just a fundie-creationist stalking horse, she could have said something inconsequential about Gitmo? Patriot Act? Presumably she's heard of those. Presumably Alaska has a homeland security budget. She didn't have to recite case law to demonstrate that she's aware there's a third branch of government and things it says impact the other two.

The main point it that SP has obvously never thought very much about any of these things, never done much reading of any consequence (her favorite writer is C.S. Lewis), never done anything to try to prepare herself for a role outside of Alaska politics.

This would be like the company founder who puts his shallow, playboy son into the CEO job and watches the kid run the company into the ground.

of course the average politician (especially those without J.D.s) aren't familiar with too many Supreme Court cases. it's not a big deal, actually. I don't really expect anyone to be facile with everything, that's why they have staff and advisors.

the problem is that Palin has proven to be adept at absolutely nothing. this is just one more example.

I realize that documentary evidence points to the contrary, but I have a hard time believing she couldn't remember the Exxon Valdez case. I just can't believe it.

Combine that with the fact that this rumor is coming from the McCain camp, and I think it may be a setup. When they show the interview and she talks about a bunch of different SCOTUS decisions, she'll both exceed expectations AND be able to whine about the unfair liberal media who spread awful rumors about her.

Seitz - interesting take.

Let's watch tonight and see if we all were set up.

FOR THE RECORD Sorry, Senator McCain and Governor Palin (voice goes way up perkily here) - Sarah is like, so NOT, a numbnuts. What was I thinking?

Thanks for the warning, Seitz.

"why does Dredd Scott have anything to do with abortion? Excuse my ignorance, but I thought it had to do with slaves and slave states. How does the pro-life groups use it?"
Posted by: phoebes in santa fe on September 30, 2008
-----------------

It has to do with the independent liberty of a person who had been the property of another. They view that as similar to a fetus being the property of the woman bearing it.

Their view is that if the slave is a person with full rights, despite being 'property', then a fetus which by their terms is 'property' is also a person with full rights.

It's pretty twisted logic, but there you have it.

Why should she bother with old SCOTUS decisions? Once she's the President, she'll simply finish what Deadye Dick has started and abolish SCOTUS, so that those activist judges never make another decision. A much *safer* action, since you can't trust those judges to *stay* committed to pushing your POV.

Isn't she a member of the NRA? I wonder how they feel about her not being able to remember the D.C. gun case decided this past term?

Governor of Alaska but can't remember the Exxon punitive verdict case ruled on this past term?

Refers to rights to terrorists in her acceptance speech but can't remember the Habeas cases?

Nobody would fault her for not knowing the names of the cases, but she couldn't even remember a brief description of what the headlines about the cases were? What the rulings were? She is, like, clueless.

I'm looking forward to the debate now. Because it does seem that she's not too bright, really. As you say, what she should be practicing is graceful ways to plead ignorance. In that case, the best response would have been something about how, unlike so many members of Congress, she has never been a lawyer (said disparagingly), a legitimate differentiation between her ticket and the Democrats and which would appeal to some people. "I think we'll be happy to leave Court cases to a conservative Supreme Court, while we work on the business of the Executive branch." Sure, it's hard to think these things up on the spot, but her team should be working out as many of these kinds of excuses as they can. But it's her flub about hearing Biden's speeches in 2nd grade that makes me feel particularly happy. Because if she can't think on her feet enough to avoid suggesting that Biden is old --- when McCain's age is such a big issue --- then her likelihood of making more mistakes at the debate seems particularly strong.