(no subject)

[unusualmusic_lj_archive]

Okay. Sarah Palin was actually asked what Supreme Court decision she DISAGREED with apart from Roe vs Wade. That's what she couldn't answer. Playing Biden beside her though made the comparison rather stark.

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

Sarah 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.

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.

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 ...

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.

A commenter gave some examples of stuff conservatives may dislike:


Lawrence v. Texas She claims not to judge gay people, but fought hard for a law that would have blocked gays and lesbians from health and other benefits provided to state workers's domestic partners. If she was playing to the fundamentalist base, then this could be cool.

Miranda v. Arizona She'd be COMPLETELY wingnutty to go against this one.

Kelo v. New London This law equal BULLSHIT. She could have gotten populist points here.

Boumediene v. Bush This would make a good fit,since she happily mocked Obama about wanted to read Muslim Terrorists their rights at the RNC.

Kennedy v. Louisiana (I promptly remembered this one, cause Obama also opposed it, and I wanted to hit him with a stick for that)

Comments

[giandujakiss.livejournal.com]

Exxon v. Baker - which she actually said she disagreed with when it came down in June. It involved the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.

[unusualmusic.livejournal.com]

She could have definitely won populist points on this. I want to slam the corporatist Supreme Court on this BS. Maverick credentials added.

[unusualmusic.livejournal.com]

Also, she believes in the right to privacy. Which undermines arguments against Roe vs Wade And contradicts her states rights argument. Oops.

[miaryann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, remember she doesn't want anyone in her family's business, she just wants to be in everyone else's family business!

[miaryann.livejournal.com]

I was going to say the same thing. Apparently she wrote a piece in the local paper opposing Exxon v Baker last summer, but couldn't even bring that one up in the interview.

And if she couldn't mention some she disagreed with, you'd think she could have said, "well I don't agree with Roe v Wade but there are *these* that I do agree with". That way she wouldn't look as clueless. She tried to say that she "supports the law of the land" so throwing in a few cases at that point might have helped her.