Name a Supreme Court case on which you and Obama agree. Just one. Assuming that you can’t figure out what Obama agrees with, since it changes every week, name a SCOTUS judge with whom you most often agree.

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

You are right that I never supported Palin. But I don’t support McCain, and unless he picked someone like Hillary or Biden, it’s likely that I would have never supported his VP candidate.

My point about the questions is this. There are a few questions so far that take the same shape, like:

Name a regulation proposal by McCain
Name a SCOTUS case you disagree with
Name a magazine you read

Where she is clearly stumped. Let’s say the MSM adds 5 more questions to the list that stump her. The left wing (and even some of the right wing) blogosphere will jump on these (including me I’m sure), but in reality, we already can predict a lot of these answers. There is little value in these questions.

So next time they ask ‘name 3 countries that border Iraq’ and she says ‘It’s very important that we stabilize this region because Iraq has many neighbors’, people will get all pumped up but I don’t think we will be learning anything new, it will be more yet another instance of the same pattern.

As for liking the answer, I’m not sure what I would have liked her to say with the SCOTUS question. I guess at a minimum I would expect a higher quality of ‘winging it’.

99% of the Court’s decisions are unanimous.

paul006 on October 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Well, that’s obviously hyperbole, but so is my suggestion that they are never unanimous.

My point is that there are judges on the Supreme Court who are legitimate historical experts on the court, the law, and the constitution, and they regularly end up on opposite sides of fundamental issues of law.

This is not to mention the frequency with which the lesser members of the court just make up/made up weird shit, like Blackmun, Stevens, and Ginsburg. Detailed knowledge of Brown or Kelo will not make the term of the next Vice President more significant.

And we already know that Obama is one of the worst judges of judicial talent in our entire political world. This knowledge alone makes it absolutely mandatory that he not be elected. He will hurt this country for decades.

As for Palin, I ask you my first question again: quick, what’s the cost of a therm of natural gas, split out for raw material and delivery cost? This will have a lot more to do with me than Plessy will.

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.

Jaibones on October 1, 2008 at 11:01 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.

revolution on October 2, 2008 at 11:59 AM

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.

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

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.

If I see the piece is written by him, I pass on it. Morrisey is great, AP is an idiot who should be fired.

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.

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

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.

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.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Palin_Biden_answer_questions_about_Roe_1001.html

Try again.

mycowardice on October 2, 2008 at 9:09 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.

“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?

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.

Who is going to clean house?
Total lack of trust of anyone in Congress, less trust yet in Wall Street.
John needs to get on the other side of the ledger.
Either way, no win either way.
Where we ought to go, FIRST PRINCIPLES WORK!

I’ve never heard such a “World is coming to an end” fire drill in my life.

…The bill passes, market goes a bit up, and then long term reality sets in, and then it goes back down.

Quit being asleep at the switch! (Fred Thompson)

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!