Wow, so Sarah Palin delivered this doozie to Katie Couric earlier this week, when she asked Palin what Supreme Court cases she didn’t agree with, aside from Roe v. Wade:
“What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?” Ms. Couric asked Ms. Palin.
And then:
PALIN: Well, let’s see. There’s –of course –in the great history of America rulings 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.
And it made me think instantly of a Supreme Court case that I personally did not agree with, and I’m sure none of you do either:
Plessy V. Ferguson - Perhaps it was because it was the first court case I had ever heard of (thanks Dad! The second case was Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned Plessy about 60 years later). Even if I were asked this question, and couldn’t think of anything else, this would have been a good jumping off point for Palin to talk about inequality of people (like women), and how it’s unjust. It would have been rather neutral for her to say that “segregation is a no-no, Katie!” and then move on.
And I’m sure that as a hunter, she could have thought of some sort of gun-controlling Second Amendment case that the court ruled on within the past 200 years. I mean, I am no legal scholar, but I know a lot of court cases that effect me (and my work): New York Times v. United States, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, Lawrence v. Texas, Regents of California v. Bakke, the other 2 I mentioned above…
My point is, why is it that being a citizen means that you don’t need to be engaged, and don’t know things that happen in the government that effect you? Is it really wrong that she doesn’t know one case other than Roe v. Wade? Perhaps she doesn’t know any cases that don’t effect her that she conflicts with? Maybe for the average person, having in-depth knowledge of the history of the Supreme Court isn’t necessary. But shouldn’t politicians have at least a frizbee-deep knowledge of the nation’s highest court? Just sayin…
