TEH MEDIA BIAS!!!oen1elenty

I can’t believe they’re trying to suggest Gwen Ifill can’t be fair because she’s black.

Oh wait, yes I can. You can almost smell their impending defeat.

Oh man, Biden, way to knock one out of the park.

The fundamentals are not strong with McCain/Palin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXFo1bte4nc

dk

Sarah Palin’s answer was clearly superior because when she said “in the great history of America” she remembered to use the adjective “great.”  As long as she knows that America is great, why does she need to know anything about the institutions that make America great? 

And, furthermore, why does Joe Biden hate America so much?

“And, furthermore, why does Joe Biden hate America so much?”

I would furthermore like to ask why Joe Biden is such a misandrist feminazi.

I had been under the impression that the question was more open-ended , something like “discuss a SCOTUS decision you find important and explain why you agree or disagree”. The “disagree” requirement does cut the field down somewhat - but there are a series of right to privacy cases starting with Griswold v CT (1965) and extending to Lawrence v TX (2003 - will never forget that week) and Carhart v NE (the “partial birth” ban, decided last year). You’d think an anti-abortion, anti-gay rights politician would remember these.

I am terrible with names - I would remember more cases if I could get past “the 1966 or 1967 SCOTUS case that extended the right to obtain birth control to unmarried women” or “Kelo v somebody or other, the case a few years back that supported eminent domain”.

note to self: before hitting “play” on videos of Sarah P., make sure to take a big ole swig from the whiskey bottle.

Gah.

IF I were a conservative (big stretch, I know) I could have come up with Kelo VS New London and Heller VS DC as two very recent Supreme Court decisions I would disagree with (again, if it was bizzaro world and I’m a conservative).

Oh, how she flails.

I wonder if she knew the cases and just didn’t remember their names…but I doubt it. 

To be fair, it’s not that she couldn’t remember SCOTUS cases, it’s that she couldn’t remember any that she disagreed with.  Which is harder.

He didn’t write the VAWA.

Ben D.

Most of the conservatives I know (including myself) do disagree with Kelo, but must of us were stunned that Heller was only 5-4.  When 4 of the Supremes couldn’t see that D.C.‘s ban (and all the similar city bans) was clearly unconstitutional, that was mind-boggling.  The vast majority of law reviews support the individual right interpretation.

If you’d have asked Couric that question within the first few months of her big turn as anchor, want to guess how many cases she might have named? Christ, I’m a lifelong journalist with my nose buried in the wires and blogs every damn day, and to remember cases on spur-of-the-moment basis, unless you’ve been reading the roundups of the decisions religiously, is a tad tricky. We on this side are quite happy John Roberts is chief justice, and happy for Scalia and our fellow from New Jersey Mr. Alito.

Bottom line is this: We trust Palin more for her sense of values and what we believe to be the strengths of this country (note: that does not mean mine is a “facts be damned” argument). I’ll “hire” her and give her on-the-job training as opposed to her counterpart and his notorious little record. Nice move by Sir Biden with his coal commentary, by the way. Wonder if he can name some mines or miners whose jobs he’d be hatcheting ...

Shorter Roberto Duran Republican: “Sure, she’s an idiot, but she’s our idiot!”

The correct answer to this question, always, is “Dred Scott v. Sanford.”
I mean, holy mother of god.

Siobahn - Could you please explain your statement that Joe Biden did not write VAWA?  That’s not my understanding at all.

VAWA was drafted by Senator Joseph Biden’s office with support from a number of advocacy organizations including Legal Momentum and The National Organization for Women, which heralded the bill as “the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades.” - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

sugar ray, you are insinuating with your comment “We trust Palin more for her sense of values” that you don’t think anyone other than a republican has values.

I beg to differ.

I’m actually with you on Kelo, tomonthebay (for different reasons probably).

Sarah Palin’s values?  Seriously?  Which value?  Abuse of power?  Harassment?  Lying?

Christ, I’m a lifelong journalist with my nose buried in the wires and blogs every damn day, and to remember cases on spur-of-the-moment basis, unless you’ve been reading the roundups of the decisions religiously, is a tad tricky

Everyone should be able to remember Brown v. Board of Education, Marbury v. Madison, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Griswold v. Connecticut as well as Roe v. Wade off the top of their heads.  At a minimum.

You and your fellow low-information voters may continue to wallow in ignorance, but I for one am voting for the higher-information ticket.

I still say Miranda should have come up instantly to her: the wingnuts hate that criminals get rights. And that is teh biggest criminal rights case of all time. Rights? They dunt need no stinkin rights… to them Death Wish was a documentary.

Ben D.
Kelo was outrageous.  Eminent domain is one of the governments most frightening powers and should never be used to transfer property from one private owner to another.  Many good things have come from eminent domain, and it has also been abused as virtually all government powers are at one time or another.  The thought of any government entity taking property from private ownership and giving it to a developer is beyond infuriating.

Sarah Palin’s values?  Seriously?  Which value?  Abuse of power?  Harassment?  Lying?

Sure, all of those, plus nepotism, taking earmarks eagerly then bragging about how you’re against earmarks, lack of information…She’s the perfect candidate for the 2008 Republican party.  Eisenhower must be spinning in his grave.

bush v gore

I’m beginning to wonder if Sarah Palin even knows the name of the country in which she is running for Vice-President.  I can’t remember her ever saying the words, “United States,” whether in conjuction with the word, “America,” or not.  The glaring vacancy in her vocabulary makes me think that she is incredibly unpatriotic every time she says, “America.”  I don’t know about you, but for me “United States” is far more important than “America”.  We are the United States.  We are specifically the United States of America.  We are not America.

I’ve also noticed how her voice has developed that unmistakable quaver of insecurity.  It wasn’t there in her smugly ignorant answers during the Gibson interview.  It wasn’t there in her acceptance speech.  But it’s there all the time now.  I take it as a hopeful sign that she isn’t the dumbest fuck to ever grace the Presidential ticket that she understands how poorly she’s been doing in public appearances.  That’s honestly the most flattering thing that I can think to say about her.

tomonthebay, you’ve finally said something I agree with.  Kelo was a travesty—government power should never be used to take a private citizen’s property and turn it over to commercial interests.

It’s one thing to use eminent domain for something that benefits the community as a whole, like a highway or a school, but a shopping mall doesn’t “benefit the community as a whole” the same way no matter how far the Supremes decided to stretch it.

Even in public use eminent domain has it’s problems. How many times do you see the new express way going right through the white, wealthy part of town?

I’ll be shameless and link my silly song about cases Palin doesn’t know:

Landmark Case Rock

Really looking forward to tomorrow’s debate. I’m making popcorn.

Eisenhower’s daughter endorsed Barack Obama. So did Julie Nixon.

Don’t forget Korematsu—I’d honestly like to know what the McCain/Palin ticket thinks about that one.

And, to give Biden’s comments their due, I think “Violence Against Women Act” oughtta be capitalized. It’s a specific bill that Congress passed.

Mike, my Dad hasn’t voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976, and is voting for Obama this year. That’s when I knew it wouldn’t be close.

And that Jimmy Carter vote was identity politics. Thinking it would be really cool to have a southern guy in the White House and whatnot.

Funny, you would think that as governor of Alaska that she would remember the Exxon Valdez decision in which she was so disappointed.  I get the feeling that perhaps she did not really have an opinion on it but let someone else do the thinking for her.

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive-37768.html

I’m all in favor of VAWA, but Biden’s justification based on interstate commerce considerations quoted above is a pretty big stretch.

We trust Palin more for her sense of values and what we believe to be the strengths of this country

The beginning of this sentence is pat conservative talking points—we know it well.  It’s the second half that is so sickening in this case.  Sarah Palin doesn’t know anything about the United States of America’s strengths other than she is supposed to say it is strong at every chance.  The separation of powers is one of the greatest inventions of humankind and this fine country deserves to be proud of it.  I sure am, are you Mr. Tom?  Palin is exhibiting profound ignorance about that history and how it plays out in reality.  She’s no patriot, she’s a fool.

I can only conclude that conservatives like Tom are: a) suffering from tremendous cognitive dissonance, or 2) see Palin as a blank slate that can be manipulated (and used to manipulate the electorate) in order to get their otherwise unpalatable agenda through.  Both are shameful options.

I’m pretty far to the left, and I thought Kelo was a terrible decision.

Biden’s justification based on interstate commerce considerations quoted above is a pretty big stretch

don’t you think maybe he had to hang it on whatever he could? doesn’t it have to involve interstate activity to BE federal? he has to work within the framework of what counts as a federal crime, not what we’d like it to be.

”...this is federalizing a private crime, and we’re not going to allow that. I think the Supreme Court is wrong about that decision.”

With all due respect to Biden (and battered women), I have to agree with the Supreme Court on that one. Interstate Commerce was a stretch. Even General Welfare would be a stretch. Sorry, chibi, but the US Constitution does not give the federal gov’t blanket authority to criminalize anything anywhere; its jurisdiction is limited. Congress has enlarged that jurisdiction over the past century, but the Constitution hasn’t.

Biden gets points for being able to discuss the matter intelligently, though.

killjoy: “To be fair, it’s not that she couldn’t remember SCOTUS cases, it’s that she couldn’t remember any that she disagreed with.”

Even so, it should be a no brainer. As akshelby indicated, Palin could have spoken at length about the Exxon Valdez ruling, which she denounced when it was handed down three months ago. For the governor of Alaska, that is the most obvious SCOTUS ruling to disagree with.

If you’d have asked Couric that question within the first few months of her big turn as anchor, want to guess how many cases she might have named?

Because as we all know, on the Today show, she was never asked to interview anyone of consequence or discuss any subject of consequence.  Personally, I think Couric could have named at least one other.

I’m a lifelong journalist with my nose buried in the wires and blogs every damn day, and to remember cases on spur-of-the-moment basis, unless you’ve been reading the roundups of the decisions religiously, is a tad tricky.

Funny how the rest of us could name at least one other, and in most cases, more.  Oh, well.  It’s not like the Vice-President will ever be put in a position where they will have to deal with the unexpected.

Bottom line is this: We trust Palin more for her sense of values

I suppose if your standard for a candidate is a person who can hate the gay, ban the abortion, and cut the tax, then you’d be satisfied with Palin.

Still, if so, why excuse her?  Why not say, “So what?  She’s an idiot.  A good Republican doesn’t need to be well-informed.”

In fact, didn’t George Will write a column to that effect about George Bush in 2000?

“Compare that lunacy to Joe Biden’s response to a similar Couric question”

LOL.  Talk about night and day.

Bottom line is this: We trust Palin more for her sense of values

Now, that’s just STUPID.

Think about it.

It’s okay I am nicknaming her the female Forest Gump.  I didn’t think an elected official could make a bigger ass of themselves when Bush declared Mandela dead but this interview with Couric takes the cake.

I’m really struck by the republican upthread’s endorsement of policy positions being above expertise in all cases. Not just because it’s stupid—see, for example, the rampant mismanagement by right-wing kids appointed to significant posts in Iraq based solely on having the right politics—but because in a certain sense it’s impossible. Policy positions that aren’t based on and rooted in actual experience tend to be deeply incoherent at best. What I’m trying to say here that it’s misguided to separate “values” from skill, since developing actual values is itself a skill.

Some SCOTUS cases are easier to remember than others due to particularly memorable names—“Dred Scott” for instance was crucially important to our history, but it helps that the poor man was named “Dred” (by his owner, presumably).

On the positive side, there is “Virginia vs Loving,” which pretty much says everything you need to know about the anti-miscegenation statutes it struck down.

And aside from my disappointment on behalf of my gay friends, my outrage at the endorsement of homophobia (which is after all a weapon against all of us, like any sort of bigotry), and incredulity at the specious reasoning that the late 1980s court majority argued, that states could discriminate against gays just because Europeans had been doing it for a thousand years or so, never mind coming up with good reasons to—who can forget a case about “sodomy” between men named—wait for it—

Hardwick vs Bowers

?

in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, that’s never going to be absolute consensus by every American.

Talk about grace under pressure.  Despite Palin’s opinion, however, I think we can all agree, as Americans, that in the great history of American rulings there have, in fact, been rulings.  As history shows, the past is full of events.

Everyone should be able to remember Brown v. Board of Education, Marbury v. Madison, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Griswold v. Connecticut as well as Roe v. Wade off the top of their heads.  At a minimum.

Yes, but the question was about decisions she disagreed with. That changes it a bit.  For me at least.

Yes, but the question was about decisions she disagreed with. That changes it a bit.  For me at least.

Which is kinda worse in a lot of ways, since there was one she specifically railed against as Governor of Alaska.

For all those who say that interstate commerce is a slender reed to hand VAWA on, consider the original in this area, Wickard v. Filburn, where the court decided that grain grown for personal consumption could be regulated because its very existence affected the price of grain sold acros state lines.

Or the Civil Rights Act…

If you’d have asked Couric that question within the first few months of her big turn as anchor, want to guess how many cases she might have named?

Let’s see, is Sarah Palin interviewing for a job as a news anchor? Oh, that’s right, she’s running for Vice President.  Comparing her answers to Couric’s imagined answers is completely irrelevant.

I expect a person who wants to be in the executive office of the entire nation to be interested in things like Supreme Court decisions.  They should be able to rattle off names of court cases, world leaders, and newspapers of record as easily as a sports fan can name athletes. 

As lots of people are saying: it’s not that Palin appears stupid, it’s that she appears ignorant.  She just doesn’t seem to be interested in the kind of things that Presidents should be interested in.

I’m really struck by the republican upthread’s endorsement of policy positions being above expertise in all cases.

So am I, but we’ve seen this nonsense before.  Jonah Goldberg pulled this same crap when he challenged Juan Cole’s knowledge of Iraq.  Cole slapped Goldberg around like a child, but Goldberg still insisted he was right because he had the ‘judgment’ to be a conservative.

It was the same logic that turned the Green Zone into a partisan circus, where Army officers with 20 years experience in reconstruction had to take orders from 22-year old wingnuts at the CPA.

As lots of people are saying: it’s not that Palin appears stupid, it’s that she appears ignorant.  She just doesn’t seem to be interested in the kind of things that Presidents should be interested in.

Hmmm. Can we name someone else in who ran for high public office while fitting that description? Against someone who was jeered at for being an intellectual? How did the country do under him?

Seriously?  Which value?  Abuse of power?  Harassment?  Lying?

What other values does a glorified thug require?

Everyone should be able to remember Brown v. Board of Education, Marbury v. Madison, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Griswold v. Connecticut as well as Roe v. Wade off the top of their heads.  At a minimum.

Yes, but the question was about decisions she disagreed with. That changes it a bit.  For me at least.

I assure you, Ms. Palin disagrees with at least 3 of those, strenuously.

tomonthebay, regarding Heller, have you actually read the lead opinions of the majority (Scalia) and minority (Breyer) in that case? However one comes down on the question, it is not all that obvious an answer as the gun folks think.  I actually agree with Scalia, in the end, but Breyer’s opinion was persuasive as well. 

Palin appears to be the walking, talking embodiment of the Peter Principle applied to politics.  She saw how Reagan succeeded with a pleasing ability to spout right wing platitudes and she learned to do that.  But she’s not at all well versed in national or international issues, as her responses painfully reveal.  I don’t blame Palin for not coming up with names.  Biden didn’t name his case either, but he certainly explained the issue involved and why he disagreed.  I wish Couric had tried to prompt Palin with a follow up, like “How about the Exxon case?” or “How about the Kelo case on eminent domain?”  The fact that Palin just went blank at the question and fell back on another meaningless platitude tells us something, but I would also like to know if she has any knowledge of the issues when she’s reminded what the issues are.

Also, it’s Loving v. Virginia not the other way around:  the Lovings were suing to have their marriage recognized.

As to those saying it’s a tough question because some intelligent, engaged people are legitimately bad with names, I’ll note that Biden had a thoughtful, nuanced position about a Supreme Court case without once mentioning its name.  (U.S. v. Morrison, it appears.)  Someone who knew what they were talking about could have answered the question regardless of whether they could come up with the name.

hotwiferio | drunk wife | exposed wife | wife video | pleasebangmywife | sexy wifes | shemale housewife
http://www.angelfire.com/matureadult/slut-wife-stories.html
http://www.angelfire.com/matureadult/drunk-wife.html
http://www.angelfire.com/matureadult/mature-lonely-housewife.html
http://www.angelfire.com/matureadult/ex-wife.html
http://www.angelfire.com/matureadult/pleasebangmywife.html
http://www.angelfire.com/matureadult/housewifes.html

paul:

For all those who say that interstate commerce is a slender reed to hand VAWA on, consider the original in this area, Wickard v. Filburn, where the court decided that grain grown for personal consumption could be regulated because its very existence affected the price of grain sold across state lines.

That’s because grain grown for personal consumption does, in fact, affect the price of grain sold across state lines. If Filburn hadn’t grown his own grain in excess of his allotment, he’d have had to buy it on the open interstate market (since there’s nowhere else to procure wheat), which by definition would have had an effect on the market-wide price.

But Biden is making the blanket claim that removing any worker from the labor pool necessarily affects interstate commerce, regardless of whether or not their job (if they even had one to begin with) actually has anything to do with interstate commerce. By that logic, every crime against person ought to be federal, and you’d be forced to argue the same for crimes against property just to maintain a modicum of consistency. In all honesty, I think the government could have gotten a better result in US v Morrison if they’d left the Commerce Clause alone entirely and stuck with a more focused Equal Protection argument.

Dan:

I don’t see how the argument about Filburn is any different from the argument Biden is making. If you remove a worker from the labor pool, that’s going to reduce the pool of workers available for jobs that include interstate commerce. If you claim that there are some workers whose labor is inherently local, you’d have to admit a similar argument in WvF that some grain is inherently grown for local consumption and hence doesn’t enter interstate commerce…

I agree with you that this eventually gets you into every local act coming under federal jurisdiction (as it does with the Civil Rights Act, where a local merchant in a local establishment serving only local goods is still forbidden to discriminate against another local citizen on prohibited grounds), and that’s not a good thing. I’m just saying that the distinction between the two cases is about the results the court wanted to reach rather than the some principled argument about the scope of interstate commerce that it was trying to uphold.

Alas, the court long ago mostly trashed equal protection arguments (except when it suited them) because that would have led to results they didn’t like in civil rights and other cases.

Re: VAWA and interstate - see Katzenbach v. McClung, maybe?

Suz: but there are plenty she should be ale to disagree with. Besides the Alaska-specific ones, there’s also Griswold and Eisenstadt, Romer and Lawrence. What with the conservative states’-rights/oh-no-judicial-activists thing I might even suggest Marbury, McCulloch or Fletcher. Except no one would actually say those, because they’d have to be really, really stupid…oh wait…

wife sharing | free hot wife stories | my wife naked | cheating wife stories | amature wife | wifes home movies | see my wife
http://www.angelfire.com/matureadult/wife-sharing.html
http://www.angelfire.com/matureadult/pleasebangmywife.html
http://www.angelfire.com/matureadult/wife-fucking.html
http://www.angelfire.com/matureadult/wifey-world.html
http://www.angelfire.com/matureadult/show-me-your-wife.html
http://www.angelfire.com/matureadult/amateur-housewife.html

I think this was a softball question by Couric, because the obvious answer for the Governor of Alaska would have been Exxon vs. Baker.  This SCOTUS decision happened just over three months ago and will have a profound impact on the state of Alaska.

Hello?

I’m starting to think that the Republican crash courses she’s being forced into are affecting her ability to think clearly.  This should have been an easy question for Palin.  The Exxon decision from June 2008 should have been right off the tip of her tongue.

What a shame.

aerdrie is right on. I agree with that now even more than I did when I commented earlier. Couric’s question was an invitation for Palin to talk about one of the few things Couric already knew Palin could talk about. Couric was practically mouthing “Exxon Valdez” while asking the question (not literally).