Search
RSS Feed
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
Blogs Eric Reads
Video: Palin Only Knows One Supreme Court Case
Here it is, the one you’ve all been waiting for:
COURIC: What other Supreme Court decisions [other than Roe v. Wade] 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…
COURIC: Can you think of any?
PALIN: Well, I could think of—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.
To her credit, she does appear to know that as Vice President she would be responsible for enforcing Supreme Court decisions. Which means that she is at least vaguely familiar with the United States Constitution.
In any case, compare with Joe Biden’s answer to the question of whether he disagrees with any SCOTUS decisions.
Update: TPM’s Eric Kleefeld:
There is a certain irony here. John McCain has long criticized Barack Obama forspeaking in platitudes, and then he went and picked a running mate who apparently can only think in platitudes.
Update 2: By the way, did you notice Sarah Palin say that there’s an inherent Constitutional right to privacy? The right on which the Roe decision is based? Clearly she knows the doesn’t like Roe v. Wade, but I’m not sure she knows why.
Besides Roe, Palin Can’t Name Any Other Supreme Court Case
Remember when CBS reported that the most embarassing parts of the Palin/Couric interview hadn’t been broadcasted yet? Well, the latest Palin gaffe has been leaked and it’s a big one
Of concern to McCain’s campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin’s interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.
The Palin aide, after first noting how “infuriating” it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.
After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.
There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.
Not a single one? Not Marbury v. Madison? Not Dred Scot? Not even Brown v. Board of Education?
And what about Griswold v. Connecticut or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two other landmark cases in reproductive rights? Or DC v. Heller, where the Court struck down Washington DC’s handgun ban just a few months ago? Shouldn’t a moose-hunter like Palin know the name of a major interpretation of the Second Amendment that was decided in June?
We could put this woman in the position to nominate Supeme Court Justices, and she doesn’t even know what they do.
Court Overturns DC Gun Ban
Via The Washington Post, the AP is reporting that the Supreme Court has struck down Washington DC’s three decade-old handgun ban.
Details are still rolling in and will be posted as I get them. They’re reporting a 5-4 decision (shocker!), and I’m guessing Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy.
Update 1: Just in, the decision was written by Justice Antonin “Fuck You” Scalia. Apparently the Second Amendment trumps everything else. No surprise there.
Update 2: I win! Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas joined Scalia on the opinion. But that was too easy.
Update 3: Transcript (PDF) or oral arguments from the case. (via DKos’ AdamB)
Update 4: The opinion (PDF) is now available. From SCOTUSblog:
In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun.
While the declaration of the individual right was clear-cut, as was the decision’s nullification of key parts of the Washington, D.C., law, the Court did not lay down a standard for judging the constitutionality of any other federal laws — an omission that the dissenters attacked strongly. Even so, the opinion made it clear that, whatever ultimate test emerge, it probably would be a tough one to meet, at least when self-defense is at issue. As Justice Scalia put it, whatever remains for “future evaluation” about the strength of the right, “it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
Update 5: Justice Kennedy’s reasoning behind voting to strike down the gun ban: BEARS!
But who knew that a case testing the scope of the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms” would smoke out a secret side of Justice Anthony Kennedy? A side so intensely protective of his right to self-defense that he makes—as I count—four separate references to some mythical “remote settler” who—at the time of the framing of the Constitution—would have needed a gun to “defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears, and grizzlies.”