Michael Crawford

Sarah Palin Supreme Court Cheat Sheet

Filed By Michael Crawford | October 02, 2008 7:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: election 2008, Joe Biden, John McCain, Katie Couric, Republicans, Sarah Palin, vice presidential debates, VP

As you can see in this clip of an interview between Sarah Palin and Katie Couric, that Palin can't name one Supreme Court case other than Roe v Wade. Not one. Couric gives her multiple times to answer the question and each time she mumbles some sort of ridiculousness in that "oh so endearing" way that only John McCain could love.

iPhone users: Click to watch

So, let's help Palin out by providing a Bilerico Supreme Court Cheat Sheet. List the Supreme Court cases that you can think of in the comments section and hopefully as Palin preps for her debate with Joe Biden she will take a glance and get a clue.

Note from Bil: Consider this the official vice presidential debate open thread for tonight. The floor is yours!

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Hmm, just off the top of my head, there's
-Loving v. Virginia
-Brown v. The Board of Education
-Lawrence v. Texas

Off the top of my head:

*Plessy v Ferguson - established "separate but equal"
*Marbury v Madison - established the concept of judicial review, i.e. the ability of the judiciary to declare laws unconstitutional
*Miranda v Arizona - established the "Miranda warning", through which the police notify arrestees of their rights
*Bush v Gore - don't ask.

Of course, since she's already apparently hit Wikipedia for a few other things, I'm waiting to hear her rattle off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases alphabetically.

Well how nice to see that the one thing they can agree on is that gay marriage is something neither supports. Hey - at least they agree on something, right? Right?

Yes? And what kind of support do they each have BESIDES gay "marriage?" Civil equality? There is such a big hang up on the word "marriage." I didn't hear a question on employment protection.

I still say the best approach is to say that 'marriage' is a religious term that should be left up to individual churches.

Let 'civil unions' be the state sponsored recognition of ALL relationships, expressed through a civil contract.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 3, 2008 6:30 AM

Until the day a federal law makes civil unions or civil partnerships the legal norm for everyone and eliminates cult-inspired 'marriages' the difference between the two will always remain the question of second class citizenship.

Until then the LGBT communities will be restricted to civil unions that victimize and marginalize us. It's a bipartisan effort. Clinton's DOMA was written by Republican bigots, passed overwhelmingly by Democratic bigots, including most liberals like Joe Biden and Barbara Mikulski , and signed by a opportunist vote hustler who boasted about it on rightwing Southern cult radio stations to get reelected, aka Bill Clinton.

Opposition to the second class status imposed on us by bigots is anything but a 'hang-up.' It is principled resistance to the bigots without regard to narrow partisan goals. Partisanship should never be given right of way over fighting the bigotry of second class citizenship. Never.

Voting for cloned candidates like Obama or McCain who pander to bigots by agreeing with ‘god’ (every ten minutes or so) that we should be in a second class status is unprincipled.

Michael Crawford Michael Crawford | October 3, 2008 12:08 AM

Tomorrow the traditional media will fall over themselves praising Palin because she was able to string together reasonably grammatically correct sentences. In reality though, she repeatedly failed to answer Gwen Ifill's questions.

Joe Biden was forceful, respectful and thoughtful in his answers. The Obama-Biden combo is an amazing ticket and I am looking forward to working my butt off to help them get elected.

The fact that Both of the VP candidates do not support Gay "Marriage" came as a major surprise to Me! Even though I am T. I was under the impression that Obama-Biden campaign was supporting LGB and possibley T? Did not HRC and a lot of the LBGT community spend a whole lot of money and time supporting Obama-Biden? I hope that people let Obama-Bidden know that it was a very negative stance taken and that it offended a lot of voters! Palin seemed not to be able to figure out what question she was answering! As much as I would not mind looking like her and Tina Fey, I could not see Sara Palin running the country! Tina Fey Maybe? Not Sara Palin! Regina

Definitely ACLU v. Reno, the first big lawsuit over censorship of the Internet by the Communications Decency Act (CDA). In 1997 the justices struck down the legislation as unconstitutional.

Also ACLU v. Gonzales, the current censorship case over the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which has been agonizing in court for many years. The Supreme Court sent it back down to a lower court for trial, and that's where it's dragging on and on, with the district court finding COPA unconstitutional and the government probably going to appeal.

Disclosure: I had the honor to be a plaintiff in both cases.

With the court going so right wing, I guess we can say goodbye to any such victories in future.