Video: Palin on Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with
posted at 7:35 pm on October 1, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A bad answer not because it’s so awkward but because she lacks the knack for spinning tough questions to her advantage in a way politicians ought to be able to. E.g., “Any decision is a bad decision, Katie, where the Court arrogates to itself the right to decide difficult questions which, in a democracy, should be left to the public.” An answer like that would have gone a long way towards countering Biden’s dopey point about the virtue of Roe v. Wade lying in its expression of consensus. Hey, Joe? Consensus is best determined at the ballot box. If Biden disagrees with that, I encourage him to let the Supreme Court decide who should be the next president.
It sounds from WaPo at this point like Palin’s going to try to bait Biden into a fatal gaffe tomorrow night to cover any missteps she might commit. Not a bad idea in light of the new CBS poll: “Women’s perception of Palin has become increasingly negative. On Sept. 8th, Palin had a 47 percent favorable rating among women and a 19 percent unfavorable; now her favorable rating among the group is down to 30 percent, while her unfavorable has risen to 34 percent.” Exit question: She’s on record as opposing the Supreme Court’s ruling on punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez case. Why didn’t she just mention that?
Update: Karl e-mails, “Biden’s a senior member of the Judiciary Committee. Try asking him about the Alaskan pipeline and see how he does.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Thank you for posting these. I’m emailing them to every Democrat I know and I know a lot…I live in L.A. CA
CCRWM on October 1, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Yeah, I’m a lawyer myself and when I first heard about her blanking on names of other cases it took me a few minutes to come up with any specific names of SCOTUS cases, much less ones that I cared about enough to disagree with. With some time to reflect, Kelo, Dredd Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson all would have been good responses, but that’s in hindsight. I don’t blame her for the lack of knowledge, that’s understandable. The problem she has is coming up with a way of challenging the terms of the question, or a smooth way of simply admitting your ignorance and moving on. I hope her debate coaches have come up with some safe harbor responses for her for tomorrow night.
Dudley Smith on October 1, 2008 at 9:23 PM
The basic problem is they have her locked up trying to remember what McCain’s position either is or what would it be. They are politically different…. McCain’s a near-democrat and she isn’t. If they would simply instruct her to say WHAT SHE BELIEVEs and be done with it. Deal with the differences when they come up.
There is a camp of absolute losers that would like to dump Palin for ????? (fill in your choice). That happens, McCain loses. There are currently 3 people in my household. I’ve never been a McCain supporter. The other two are huge Palin fans. He does that, he loses 2 votes for sure (my wife and daughter) and, mine will depend completely on what I have to do on Nov 4.
Let me see… Eagleton was dumped and how many electoral votes did that Presidential candidate get????
Dumping her is simply not an option.
CC
CapedConservative on October 1, 2008 at 9:24 PM
*yawn*
Same shite, different nite.
ManlyRash on October 1, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Did I hear Biden correctly? Our forefathers were engaged in religious wars? They had fought them for hundreds of years? Does this guy just start talking and have no honesty governor attached to his tongue?
Jdripper on October 1, 2008 at 9:38 PM
In all fairness to me, Lansing’s question was about asking US a case we disagreed with :).
mycowardice on October 1, 2008 at 9:44 PM
The Constitution does not state there is a separation of church and state. The Constitution states, “There will be no laws” and now we come up with laws that state we shall not have the Ten Commandments, Christmas scenes, any religious items on display in the public areas. What the hell is that? It’s a direct violation of our Constitution. Never thought about it that way did you?
mixplix on October 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Dude, you have this all wrong. Allah says that this “spinning” is all a part of the grand pageantry of America’s crap politics. Palin is unqualified because she can’t make up ridiculous lies while smiling, but Greasy Joe is the best!
You just don’t get it.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Eh, it wasn’t that bad. She blanked and vamped. Not that painful to watch. She’s not in the business of law-making. She’s been in the business of law-enforcing.
Sound and fury, IMO…
spmat on October 1, 2008 at 9:53 PM
That’s the part that’s killing me. These self-important assclown attorneys at HotAir looking for “spin” and not even knowing when Biden has spun them around in a circle.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 9:55 PM
There is a point when the attempt to become “fair and balanced” becomes idiotic. Is it your goal, AP, to demoralize the GOP? None of the 43 POTUS we have had could come up with perfect answers, or better yet, unspinnable by the MSM answers, every time, all the time.
It is the character of the candidate that counts. I could give a rats a$$ if she stumbles over an answer or can’t think of a SCOTUS case she disagreed with on the spot. So what? What kind of judges would she encourage Mac to appoint? That’s what matters.
Allah, sometimes you try to be too smart by half. I, for one, am not impressed.
pugwriter on October 1, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Very good. Now for the followup question.
Which Justices voted for and against and who wrote the majority opinion and how much time passed between hearing the cases and the decision announced?
Ya got two minutes!
News2Use on October 1, 2008 at 9:56 PM
The first amendment prevents the esablishment of a religion. Christmas scenes in the public square should be OK but a list of 10 Commandments in a court house is not.
dedalus on October 1, 2008 at 10:02 PM
JUST SAY NO, SARAH.
Or like others have said, take the question your way.
Why’d they lead with one question for Biden and give him uninterrupted time to wax lyrical with his answer, and then fail to do the same with Palin?
..Rhetorical.
Reaps on October 1, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Technically, the first amendment simply prevents the passing of laws, by congress, “respecting” the establishment of religion… it ostensibly meant–originally–that the federal legislature had no say whatsoever in what states chose to do with respect to religion.
DaveS on October 1, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Though, I’m certainly glad it has been interpreted as a “wall” of sorts.
DaveS on October 1, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Roe v Wade is fine with us)
Kelo v ? Connecticut (eminent domain is fine with us)
Lawrence v Texas (butt sex is fine with us)
Scopes (we don’t like your nutty evolutionary theory)
Hey, I completely forgot the nutty Mukasey ruling this summer!
How about Hamdan at Gitmo?
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Do you think he cares what you think? I wouldn’t bet on it.
He’s got the Charles Johnson disease.
Calm Before the Storm on October 1, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Yes, yes. It is so important to know the nuance of a court that decides every case 5-4. Lots of real serious legal thought going on there…
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Admit it – you didn’t realize that Joe Biden answered a question about SCOTUS rulings with some idiotic blather about legislation that he had sponsored. Did you?
The problem isn’t Katie Colon, and it’s not that Sarah Palin is retarded. The problem is that we have too many voters observers who are a) stupid, and b) don’t know what it means to govern anything.
You are all like cricket fans watching football and thinking you know what’s happening. You’re looking the wrong way.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 10:21 PM
There is much in the writing of Madison and Jefferson expressing the importance of keeping religion out of the operation of the government they were creating.
I’d agree with your point that they viewed the federal government as more limited than we do today and that they might not have beleived they had the power to limit the state governments. The Supreme Court’s Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940 did decide that the Constitutional protection for free exercise did extend to state and local governments though.
dedalus on October 1, 2008 at 10:31 PM
When McCain was going up in the polls, the HotAir was filled with posts about the polls. Now that Obama is winning in the polls, you can’t find one blog post about this topic (Headlines don’t carry the same weight). So I would say when you see Allahpundit (Eid Karim by the way) post some polls, then you know he is out to demoralize everyone.
mycowardice on October 1, 2008 at 10:33 PM
You’re so wrong it’s almost funny. Almost.
Hope you’re still reading tonight. Would you agree that there are basic principles in law and government that are not subject to interpretation or opinion? Just right or wrong?
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 10:41 PM
As a wise ol country lawyer once told me from the back of his Red pickup truck; “You don’t need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind blows”
Then he tossed me some Moose jerky and drove away. Most meaningful moment of my life.
Paging Capt Freedom – jaibones needs a hero
Bradky on October 1, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Hey, butt boy. Perfect substitute for amernitwit.
How about you? Are you willing to submit that some principles and rules of government are just correct?
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 10:48 PM
(btw, you’re giving yourself away with the 60’s radical bs)
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Are you askeered, Bradky?
How about some of the other lunchroom lawyers?
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 10:51 PM
At least I’m not burying my head in my own butt trying to perform mental gymnastics to defend a lousy performance.
In tonight’s episode of “Spinning with the Stars” Jaibones gets a 5 6 6 for his first dance called “But But She’s the Cuda”
Bradky on October 1, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Oh Jaibones for a lawyer out of Chicago who is bitter that life has left you facing 60 full of regrets… I’ll pray for you next time I’m with the tree group.
Bradky on October 1, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Performance. Perfect.
Why don’t you explain to us hicks why, if the knowledge of Plessy Ferguson is so important to your understanding of whom to vote for and how to evaluate VP candidates, why and how the great Harvard Law Review Editor Barry O’Bambi determined that John Roberts was unqualified to be confirmed as Chief Justice?
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Then, explain why, since Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a superior law school student, top of her class at what, Harvard? Why she doesn’t seem to agree on a single point of law with other top law school graduates, say for instance, Roberts, Scalia, Rehnquist, Alito, Thomas?
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Why don’t you work with your chucklehead buddy who took me at face value that Dred Scott was the judge who cast the final vote in Bush v Gore and thought Bush won the case in Florida?
Bradky on October 1, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Is this how you present your cases in court? Do you get all you know red in the face like an ulcer is about to burst?
Bradky on October 1, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Since SCOTUS decisions and fun party tricks from liberal nitwits like Katie Colon are so vital to your view of government, why don’t our Supreme Court decisions end up 9-0, or 8-1? Ever.
Why are decisions turned over so often on appeal? Why is the 9th circuit the laughing stock of the legal world?
It’s easy to see why a liberal troll like Buttky is having sport with this, but you conservatives that buy into this bullshit are embarrassing. Bradky had it right – it’s performance art, almost the exact same thing Allah called it.
I call it crap.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:01 PM
amerpundit – quick – what’s the cost of a therm of natural gas, split out the delivery cost from the raw material?
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:02 PM
That was just painful to watch. My gf who knows nothing about politics and is generally right-leaning said “ohmygod she has no idea, does she…”.
AlexB on October 1, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Enlighten us oh great Hotair Attorney and keeper of the realm. Exactly what questions do you propose for Palin? Who gets to judge if they are “too hard or irrelevant”.
Bradky on October 1, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Many are missing a salient point here. Katie has designed this to produce blank moments. Obama has them so does everyone else. It is what the producers tell the tape cutters in the room deciding what to do with the blank moments for their own agenda. Obviously Obama’s many blank moments, history, associations etc. have deliberately been left on the cutting floor, not asked or ignored because of sharing the tank with him by these vermin.
wepeople on October 1, 2008 at 11:03 PM
I thought that was Judge Dredd?
And I’m not ulcerous or red-faced, unless I’ve been in the pinot. And I haven’t.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:04 PM
And I’m certainly not an attorney.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:05 PM
So all this law talk is coming from your ass? Thought so.
Bradky on October 1, 2008 at 11:06 PM
But that reminds me – almost all of my attorney friends are lefties who play these same parlor games, and believe exactly the opposite of what the conservative Supremes find, almost every time.
Sorry, that kind of nuance sounds like a stupid way to pick politicians to me.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:06 PM
My ass? Same place as the lawyers, I guess. I studied constitutional law in school. It isn’t worth a crap. That’s all I’m saying. It’s fun, but I’d rather pick politicians who agree with me on practical stuff – energy policy, law and order, national defense, economics (this is very hard), personal liberty.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:08 PM
You live in Chicago and you are really surprised that there are leftie attorneys?
Bradky on October 1, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Bing. Performance art.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:10 PM
No, not surprised. But it sure engenders a lot of disrespect for the bar. That’s one of the reasons I have so much respect for the so-called originalists; everything else is just their personal opinion.
Remember Biden’s idiotic response on Roe? He thinks it’s great jurisprudence because he believes it reflects some sort of Solomonic splitting of the baby, if I may be graphic.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:12 PM
All basic principles are subject to interpretation or opinion.
mycowardice on October 1, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Just for the record I don’t make decisions based on what I watch on tv – ever. I take the time to actually tear myself away from the internet and read something longer than a paragraph or two. But you and I are maybe 8 years apart in age and I would bet that is something we actually have in common.
Get on the internet and see people seriously discussing things who believe Dred Scott was a SCJ…
Bradky on October 1, 2008 at 11:13 PM
He likes it because he agrees with it. He thinks it’s funny that they invented a “right to privacy”.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:13 PM
I know. It’s maddening.
I get all animated when it comes to these legal things because I’m still outraged at liberals voting against Roberts’s confirmation, and Bork. Overwhelmingly qualified judges, forced to sit through a juvenile grilling from imbeciles who aren’t fit to launder their shirts.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Really? No right or wrong anywhere in the law?
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Bad decisions??? How about Marbury v. Madison?
sertillanges on October 1, 2008 at 11:17 PM
We are at a crossroads. If McCain wins it is a transition where the 60’s liberalism finally is put to rest – SC would be untouchable for 35 years. High paid tv talkers in their 60’s would retire.
Two good things come of this; first the Dems come back to the center and squash their left crazies, second the GOP has a breather to reassess how they will change in regards to the new demographics.
Bradky on October 1, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Marbury outscored him by 12, and the Knicks won in overtime.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:20 PM
The prosecution rests. God bless you…
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Sounds like heaven to me.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Have a good night Jaibones.. till next time
Bradky on October 1, 2008 at 11:23 PM
The best qualities of the six top candidates would make one pretty good statesman. Short of that, we are left with flaming imperfection.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:24 PM
And you.
Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Find me the law that yields perfect right / wrong.
mycowardice on October 1, 2008 at 11:25 PM
sertillanges on October 1, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Amen.
Saltysam on October 1, 2008 at 11:53 PM
That’s all she had to say.
Saltysam on October 2, 2008 at 12:00 AM
You don’t draw water from an empty well.
trailboss on October 2, 2008 at 12:14 AM
i hate when moron journalists think they can discuss legal doctrine. just b/c you might believe the constitution bestows a right to privacy, doesn’t mean you can’t be against roe v. wade on the premise that the state’s right to protect a fetus overrides said right to privacy. dummy.
anna on October 2, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Lets face it. We all would be much happier if our politicians were just John Roberts and Sam Alito clones. Those are the smart guys we want but the smart guys do not usually become politicians. Who would want someone digging what racial slurs you used in high school and other nonsense?
Speedwagon82 on October 2, 2008 at 12:33 AM
EMPTY SKIRT.
I support McCain/Palin and I will vote for them come November, but I believe that this is a loosing ticket, and we have Macaniancs and Hucksters to thank for this debacle.
Can I have Mitt or Fred back please? Pretty please?
Heck, I’d RATHER HAVE RON PAUL and Chuck Baldwin than the two we have now.
Borislav on October 2, 2008 at 12:34 AM
I noticed something in the video. Did anyone else notice Couric’s radically different attitude toward them?
apollyonbob on October 2, 2008 at 12:39 AM
I’ve already bet $5 with one of my liberal co-workers that he’ll refer to Palin at least once with “little lady”.
Here’s hoping the Scrapper from Scranton doesn’t disappoint.
The Ugly American on October 2, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Who cares if Katie Qu’ran Couric is a leftist partisan ( which she is.
Palin should know at least a couple of supreme court decisions she disagrees with.
This is ridiculous. Many people here go after Obama for being an empty suit ( which he undoubtedly is ), why cheer for Palin who is obviously as empty as Barak Husein?
Borislav on October 2, 2008 at 1:05 AM
Because the four Justices who agreed with her were all of the liberal ones.
Damian G. on October 2, 2008 at 1:18 AM
You know why this is a “GOTCHA!” question? Because they wouldn’t dare ask it to Obama or Biden. Assuming that Obama could win a game of political Trivial Pursuit is a very flawed foundational belief. If O’Reilly had asked Obama these types of questions, all the left would be doing is spinning that it is all irrelevant. It’s embarrassing Palin didn’t have an answer, especially with 3 VERY RECENT unpopular decisions. It’s more embarrassing, however, that these questions are acceptable for Palin and not the freshman senator.
Levinite on October 2, 2008 at 1:44 AM
All you conservative weenies bashing Palin should know, she’s the only reason we libertarians are supporting the ticket.
We were just fine supporting Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr. In fact, Barr was up to a consistent 5 to 6% in Zogby over the summer. And then McCain had to go pick a libertarian Republican as his running mate.
Do you think that so many libertarians would be supportive of the ticket if McCain had chosen a Tim Pawlenty, or even a Mitt Romney? I like Romney, but he would have been a very tough sell to my libertarian friends.
McCain made an absolutely brillant choice with Palin. And she’s making us libertarians proud. If you conservatives wanna bail on her fine. We’ll still stand by her side.
ericdondero on October 2, 2008 at 5:00 AM
The Couric interview was just on Morning Joe, and will continue until 11/04, and probably in commercials. We all supported this selection when it was made, but at this point, John McCain has to win this himself.
kflynn on October 2, 2008 at 7:14 AM
One of THE worst Supreme Court decisions ever:
This was a clear victory for socialism’s “common good” ploy to further diminish the idea of private ownership. I wish Palin had mentioned it…
Logic on October 2, 2008 at 7:21 AM
Disaster
Dritanian on October 2, 2008 at 7:37 AM
Look,, people aren’t thinking here the obvious.
She is a conservative. I know the first thing that came to my mind after Roe v Wade. What is the first that comes to yours??
I can think of two,,, the first was when the court upheld
MCCAIN/FEINGOLD!!
oopps,, have to think here,, can’t say that.
JellyToast on October 2, 2008 at 7:57 AM
Question was lose-lose. No good answer. She did the best possible under the circumstances without making any enemies on the SCOTUS.
kanda on October 2, 2008 at 8:09 AM
As a conservative, I implore McCain to dump her for Romney ASAP!
Either that or this is the biggest rope-a-dope in world history.
She hasnt a clue people. I am pulling for her, but it is getting to hard when Katie Couric stumps you. Katie Couric!!!!
We need someone with economic savy for real right now, Mitt Romney would be perfect b/c everything McCain talked about at the convention is by no means relevant at the moment, the economy is the issue for the next 5 weeks. And neither of them will toe that line effectively.
TheHat on October 2, 2008 at 8:49 AM
She could have picked a decision that has been overturned and none of the justices agree with–say Plessy or Dred Scott. She wasn’t worried about making enemies at SCOTUS by disagreeing with Roe.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 9:00 AM
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Palin_Biden_answer_questions_about_Roe_1001.html
Try again.
mycowardice on October 2, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Easy conservatives! This is the first quarter with three left. Don’t be so stupid as to buy the lefty media inside D.C political/newsdustrial complex line that Sarah is a dope and a dolt.
McCain is holding fire knowing this thing is very volatile. I would rather be ahead Nov. 4th than Oct. 4th. He is being Mr. Non-partisan now but bashing the Dems in commercials.
Sarah is exactly what this country needs citizen legislators and reformers with the countries interests at heart, not their own and their buddies. She is the opposite of a bunch of carreer pols who have caused the current mess we are in and the exact idea of a servant of the people by the people and for the people the founding fathers knew this country needed!
The Dems and accomplises in the media are doing their best to destroy her and she is still standing!
What if McCain were to in the coming weeks start announcing cabinet postions?
Romney for Fed. Chair
Rudy for Homeland security
Lieberman for Sec. Def. (Ouch it hurt to say that)
Huckleberry for Kindergarden homeschooler cop? ( Had to find somewhere for him)
Then turn each of these loose on the trail to support their candidate and articulate their visions. Thompson is already out there and doing well.
Remember this is a gotcha game with Sarah every question asked is loaded with an easy , wrong answer that she would be bashed about the head and shoulders for. She is not falling into the traps so they try harder.
She may not have as much knowledge of the inner workings of D.C as Biden, Obama, Frank, Dodd and a whole host of gasbags that have infected this great country that is what staffs and advisors are for. Hold fire until you see the whites of their eyes . Let them make the major gaffes and policy missteps then pounce!
dhunter on October 2, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Fred Thompson on Laura Ingraham right now.
Palin.
McCain.
Bail-out bill.
maverick muse on October 2, 2008 at 9:43 AM
maverick muse on October 2, 2008 at 9:46 AM
maverick muse on October 2, 2008 at 9:48 AM
i’ll fight on but my pragmatism tells me this election is lost. Perhaps it’s time to regroup, rearm and fight another day. McCain would have been a very capable president but you just can’t tromp on your private parts every day, day after day and expect to win.
rplat on October 2, 2008 at 9:57 AM
“McCain would have been a very capable president”
Really?
He would have?
I wonder what makes you say that. Is it his stellar choice of VP? Is it his brilliantly ran campaign?
Look there was only 1 man who would have been a capable president running on both sides. That’s Romney.
Borislav on October 2, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Look . . . there are varying levels of acceptance and “capable” falls somewhere in the middle. And yes, I think McCain’s missteps are turning into mortal wounds. Personally, I also like Romney but we didn’t have him and to argue his merits at this particular time in space is fruitless . . . maybe next time?
rplat on October 2, 2008 at 10:19 AM
No need to “try again”. Just a hunch here, but was Biden’s exam held before or after Palin? I’m not making an excuse for Palin; she should have NAILED this. In all due respect, I would love to hear Biden answer an executive gotcha over a legislative one.
Levinite on October 2, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Absolute need to try again. You said they wouldn’t ask the question to Biden. They did. Now you might be on to something, but not in the way you originally presented it.
I have to say I am tuning out of the Palin questions/answers. They all seem to be a repeat of each other. If the question doesn’t contain the answer, she doesn’t know.
mycowardice on October 2, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Who cares what Biden could or could not answer. We know that Biden is a complete moron. Question is why should our party answer his moron with our own?
Borislav on October 2, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Which VP pick would the media not be tearing apart at this point Lieberman?
That would really satisfy a lot of us now wouldn’t it.
Give the lady a break she is just what we need in this hate Washington and big govt elites cycle.
The marketing just needs to get better as I said before better to be aheld in Nov. than in Oct.
dhunter on October 2, 2008 at 11:17 AM
I won’t exactly compare Sarah Palin’s lack of knowledge on certain issues with Biden’s “gaffe a day” blowhard escapades. Palin’s problem can be fixed with a little more seasoning…Biden on the other hand, not so much.
Dritanian on October 2, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Man, what a bunch of whiney weinies.
Sarah Palin is the Republican VP choice. She’s not dumb. She’s not a Washington insider. Who gives a flying phart if she knows the names of SCOTUS cases? We aren’t electing a vice-lawyer-in-chief. We’re electing a vice president who can step in as an executive. Executives delegate authority to others with expertise in certain areas.
This is the sound bite I wish to leave you with.
She’ll do fine; she’s the pick. She’s what we have so support her and get over your own weinie ways.
Tennman on October 2, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Allah Pundit is the worst possible person to run this site. He is a cynical punk and the reason I rarely come here anymore. I like to see if there are some interesting video clips and quickly leave if there aren’t.
If I see the piece is written by him, I pass on it. Morrisey is great, AP is an idiot who should be fired.
revolution on October 2, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Just making a guess here — and maybe it’s because you have it posted on your blog that you’re an Obama supporter — that you were never for Sarah Palin.
I do have to commend you though. Most members of the “other party” come in here blasting invectives and spouting outrage. So far, you are the type of Democrat that I could have an engaging, real discussion with.
So, with my compliments, I do believe you are incorrect about our Sarah. The premise is: if you don’t like the answer she doesn’t know. How about this one instead? You don’t like the answer because you don’t like the answer. Any other assumption you make is probably wrong.
Tennman on October 2, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Seems to me the only punk here is you. Don’t come here if you don’t like it. And don’t poop in our kitchen.
Tennman on October 2, 2008 at 12:07 PM
What an embarrassment. And to think some losers on this very blog called me names two days ago for pointing out that Palin is crashing and burning. Tonight marks the end of the campaign.
Baphomet on October 2, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Biden sounds like a drunken old sot and Palin is the one who’s criticized. Apparently, not being a lawyer is her worst flaw.
We KNOW that even if (especially if) Sarah hits it outta the park, they will say Biden won. It’s a done deal already.
Baphomet is already getting used to saying ‘President Obama’.
I’m betting the debate is lost no matter what, but I’m not ready to throw in the towel altogether.
Since when has the VP candidate made a big difference? (2008, because of SP.)
Christine on October 2, 2008 at 12:49 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court often issues unanimous, or near-unanimous, opinions. Here’s an 8-1 decision from June. Here’s another case, also from June, with only a partial dissent by Justice Thomas. Again from June, here’s another unanimous opinion. And here’s a 9-0 decision from April.
These are cases I found from a quick search of the Court’s web site. You can find many, many others. And if you count as unanimous the thousands of cases in which the Court issues judgment without written comment, then 99% of the Court’s decisions are unanimous.
paul006 on October 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »