Thursday, October 2, 2008

Palin's next painful forray with Couric: Supreme Court decisions

Sarah Palin must be the most incurious, unengaged politicians ever to seek national office. If something didn't occur in Alaska, it's news to her. She's been busy shooting moose and wolves in the wilderness that she can't even recall a single thing the Supreme Court has done, expect for Roe v. Wade. The following is an exchange she had with Katie Couric during their disastrous interview series on CBS:

Couric Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America. [So Palin thinks that states are the ultimate authority on whether or no a woman as a right to choose?? What makes states more equipped to deal with it than the federal government?]

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that. [So Palin believes in the underlying rule for Roe v Wade -- right to privacy -- but thinks the states should regulate privacy?]

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America 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 …
[She's clueless and rambling]

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think 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. [Still clueless and rambling]

Do we really want the person in the second highest office in the country to not know a single thing about the highest court in the land? I realize it may have been tough for Palin to keep up with American History since she changed colleges colleges five times in six years, but there is still no excuse. How about the Dred Scott decision Sarah, which said black Americans weren't included under the word "citizens" in the Constitution. Or Plessy v Ferguson which allowed for separate but equal (segregation). Or Korematsu v. United States, which allowed for the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. And there's my all-time favorite, the decision that gave the Presidency to George W. Bush in 2000.

Most high school kids could probably reel off one or two of those. Palin's vast lack of knowledge about the basics on nearly every topic make you wonder just what they're teaching those kids in Alaska.


No comments: