Palin Can't Name Supreme Court Case She Disagrees With Other Than Roe (VIDEO)

For days, word has been spreading that CBS Evening News was sitting on an embarrassing clip of Sarah Palin not being able to name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade. On Wednesday night, it was aired. And it could be just as devastating as imagined.

Interviewed by Katie Couric for the station's vice presidential question series, the Alaska Governor does, indeed, draw a blank. The topic was a bit more complex than simply naming another case. Asked which decisions, other that Roe, she disagreed with, her responses went as follows:

PALIN: Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, there'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.

WATCH: (Palin starts 2 minutes in, after Biden)

Watch CBS Videos Online

Several days ago, the McCain campaign leaked word to Jonathan Martin of Politico that this segment was going to become public, topping off a series of shaky segments that the Republican vice presidential nominee had taped with Couric. And while Palin's answer certainly doesn't help her standing among voters already worried about her capacity to take over the job at a moment's notice, it's hard to imagine that the bar can move much lower than it already is.

The expectations are at a minimum for the vice presidential debate on Thursday night. Palin should be able to do better in Missouri than she has done on CBS.

UPDATE: Several readers have pointed out an equally telling statement Palin made during Wednesday night's Couric interview. Asked specifically if she believed the Constitution afforded a right to privacy, the Alaska Governor responded in the affirmative, even after reminded that it was the legal basis for Roe.

COURIC (to Palin): 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 handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that.

COMPLETE VP DEBATE COVERAGE: BIDEN PALIN VIDEO, HIGHLIGHTS

Comments

[PartyPartyParty]

Slightly off topic, but when did this cra*p about using SCOTUS to refer to the Supreme Court start? We're not a freaking military state yet, so until the junta takes over, would y'all please stop using acronyms for everything like you were talking about battle plans?!!?!­???!?!?!?1

ARRRRRGH!!!

[cardtosser]

Let's stay on topic. We are discussing VPOTUS.

[PartyPartyParty]

You cruel, cruel thing, you!!! GAAAAAHHHH!!!!1

[spartanmom]

I'm with you

[waynew]

Why didn't she name the Exxon case!!???? She went on TV and commented on it (you can google the TV interview the day of the decision; it was on an Alaskan TV station). She sounded fine.

I think she did not name it with Couric because he did not have a firm grasp of the court's role in the case. Maybe she didn't even realize it was a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Also ... she easily could have avoided answering Couric's question and just answered her own. I, personally, would have said, I tend to think more the cases I do agree with, the cases where the High Court affirmed individual liberties and rights -- and then named a few, Brown v. Education, the Miranda case (no one expects you to know the formal name but come on, you have to know "Miranda rights." etc etc etc ....).

[kensp]

I believe it is Miranda v. The State of Arizona.

[spartanmom]

Lack of mental agility.

[OlskoolDem]

like the result of the 2000 election,...

[voidware]

Contrast and Compare the "hard hitting journalist", Katie Couric v. Palin and the cute little mouse, Katie Couric in this Biden interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBl7jrD1GzU

[Snow97]

Hey, if Katie Couric can throw you off your game just by asking you follow-up questions, you really have no business running for national office.

And, lest we cry a river for Sarah Palin, remember that it was SHE who accepted -- without "blinking" -- this run for office.

But mediocrity will always find an excuse, eh?

[waynew]

She also DOESN'T KNOW WHAT A FEDERALIST IS!

When you are a federalist, you support the federal government's authority to decide. When you are anti-federalist, you support state's rights to decide.

There's nothing wrong with this ... except Palin doesn't understand what the term means. ... and she is anti-federalist in other regards, including ANWR (she supports Alaska's right to decide whether to drill vs. letting Washington, D.C., decide). ... and McCain on many, many occasions has pointed out that he is a federalist.

Google "I'm a federalist" and john mccain ... you'll see tons of references to McCain being a federalist on many issues, including gay rights issue ... and he has stated MANY times, "I'm a federalist."

He and Sarah aren't on the same page on this. That's OK.

Lots of being don't know exactly what a federalist is, though we all learned it in 8th grade civics. But SHE SHOULD NOT CALL HERSELF SOMETHING IF SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IT IS!!!!

[bumom]

Actually, federalism refers to a central government that controls common affairs, with states retaining control over internal affairs. A federalist is someone who supports this form of government.

[PartyPartyParty]

But then there's the Federalist Society, whose goal is to promote the appointment of extreme right-wing judges. Nasty, nasty nasty group.

[rpdillon]

Yeah, actually, no. A federalist is someone who supports the United States as a *federation* of individual states - the federal government takes care of only the basics, and the states retain a large degree of discretion and autonomy. As Wikipedia says:

"In contemporary usage, as articulated by president Bush's New Federalism, federalists advocate the principle of greater regional autonomy within the United States—usually by allowing individual states to set their own agendas and determine the handling of issues, rather than trying to impose a nationally uniform solution."

Which is pretty much the exact opposite of what you said:

"When you are a federalist, you support the federal government's authority to decide. When you are anti-federalist, you support state's rights to decide."

[Hedonist88]

I think Sarah Palin has been absolutely brilliant, and I mean that without the slightest bit of cynicism.

She has intentionally played dumb and stumbled along in her interviews with Couric so that expectations are now rock bottom, and all she needs is to string a coherent sentence in English to get rave reviews.

It's a master stroke, and this debate will be marked as the confirmation that Palin is a worthy vice presidential candidate after all.

Just wait and see, she will come out in full force today - sharp, coherent and armed with facts and figures - it will totally take everyone by surprise.

Palin's team are calling it operation "Sarah's Shock & Awe" !!

[hmmmmm77]

it will certainly surprise me!

[EdMitchell]

Can she be any more brain-dead? Next to her, Bush seems like an intellectual. It's hysterical that someone who calls his or herself Hedonist defends a tight-assed, bible-thumping, right-wing nut like Palin. What are you smoking? " Shock and Awe" - it will be more like "Shmuck and Ah".

[tuie]

We eat our own. I am no fan of Sarah Palin, and no fan of Katie Couric. Where was Couric when our current President needed a good going over. For some reason I guess she feels safe cornering Sarah Palin. Couric could probably asked our current president the same questions she is asking Palin and get the same "blank stare". Couric is finding her voice and her courage - as far as I am concerned a little friggin' late.

[PartyPartyParty]

It's always a little friggin late. Same thing with Vietnam, same thing with Watergate. It's infuriating, isn't it? It takes some people longer to get pissed off, but this is the longest it's ever taken.

[findmehere]

I couldn't agree with you more. I loved Katie when she called out Bush Sr. during that tour she was given in the White House by Barbera Bush. She nailed him on current issues, when he popped his head in to the interview, and never expected her to be the tough little reporter she was then. She had no fear. When W and the neocons came along, Katie changed. Her current ratings are indicative of the feelings the general public has about her now.

[voidware]

Get one thing straight Drones: Its not nearly the gaffe Biden offered Katie Couric, saying people were sitting around watching the FDR on TV in 1929. No there was no TV and No FDR wasn't President.

As if it would be great for her campaign to split hairs by listing any Federal Supreme Court Decisions she was against.

What good would it do anyone? None.

Most Federal Supreme Court Decisions are not as controversial and, hence, don't come up every election like Roe V. Wade.

What would be a "good" decision for her to be against?

Its not quite the gaffe that was originally reported to be that she couldn't list any supreme court decisions.

Again, Its not like saying people were sitting around the kitchen table watching the FDR on TV in 1929 like Biden imagined to Katie Couric. Or asking a man in a wheel chair to stand up. Did you hear that Biden gaffe?

Probably not.

Gotcha, Joe.

[BlueMominaRedState]

That this is the best defense you have is very telling.

Let's see, mistake about the use of mass communication verus not knowing any controversial SCOTUS decisions.­...hmmm...­.

It's not like the executive branch has anything to do with judicial appointments.... oh wait, they do. Uh-oh.

But look on the bright side, maybe she can get back to us on that !

[voidware]

Here's that hard hitting Biden interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBl7jrD1GzU
Just slightly different in its scope.

I thought Palin's answer was weak, but its a gotcha.

She's conservative, we know what judges she'll appoint.

Still, she didn't say she didn't know any SCOTUS decisions. That's where everyone promoted the gaffe incorrectly. She said she couldn't recall any SCOTUS decisions she was against other than Roe V. Wade.

So what?

[LogicInDC]

No we all heard it... nobody is arguing it was a moment of genius, but unlike Palin's gaffes, it does not show a fundamental lack of understanding and knowledge on the US goverment and economics (i.e. the types of things you would actually deal with while in the white house... not issues over whether people had TV in FDR's days.)

Secondly, it just goes to show that she has to be fed everything she "believes." The disturbing question is who will be tutoring her on what to think and do if she is VP?

[bumom]

Gosh, do you think it might be McCain?

[PartyPartyParty]

Get THIS straight, neocon drone:

The Roosevelt radio address Biden was referring to was in 1932, when he was newly elected. Roosevelt was reassuring voters that, unlike Hoover's administration, he would take action to provide relief. The first bank panic occurred in 1930. Nothing was done. The second bank panic occured in the spring of 1931. By the end of 1931, unemployment was at 15.7. And still Hoover and the Republican congress sat around and did nothing. Yes, Glass-Steagal was passed in 1932, but by then the public had had enough of Hoover.

Biden was making reference to the fact that, once again, the White House has done virtually NOTHING in the way of any kind of real economic reform. Instead, it's been allowing corporations to empty the cookie jar and then demand that taxpayers fill the jar again.

Willfully ignorant people really get my back up.

[gypsy508]

Well. I'm glad at least she believes the right to privacy is in the Constitution. That is certainly a radical interpretation.

[PartyPartyParty]

Hah. She believes in it as long as the individual isn't gay or isn't trying to take control of her reproductive system. Then privacy goes out the window.

[NakedMoleRat]

Palin must be a fan of Biden, having said she has listened to all his speeches "since the second grade".

Too bad she never listened to the news or read any newspapers or magazines. There have been quite a few landmark decisions in the news since she was in the second grade.

But then, by her own admission, she:

1. Did not know what the VP's job is when she stated:

"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?"

2. No interest in the Iraq war when she stated:

"I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

The content of Biden's gaffe's do not affect America or me.

Palin's gaffes, due to her lack of knowledge or her lack of interest (other than Roe v Wade) do affect us.

Sometimes I feel like sending a 25 cent donation to the McCain campaign just so she could buy a clue.

[muypolitico]

I have decided to use Palin as a role model for my 3-year old daughter.

I will keep her interview videos and play them for little girl while I am on my knees begging her never to lose her tremendous reading habits and curiosity. And most importantly, never to become like G.I. Barbie.

[IllinoisTexan43]

Oh, please G*OD, let this be the real thing! I don't have the stomach for an October Surprise!

[FaceYourFears]

After watching Palin's interview with Katie...somehow she doesn't look as pretty as she did before.

[muypolitico]

Beauty without brains wears out sooner than later.

BTW, although she is very good at controlling her body language and her voice modulation, Palin's voice has a subtle quiver when she is dumbfounded

[jackinhack]

You'd think she remember the Exon Valdeze Supreme Court Decision that she didn't agree with a few months ago.

And then her now claiming the media is censoring her?

Where does this woman come from?

Then we have Johnney boy saying he's never mispoke the truth yesterday when confronted with the lies by the Iowa paper editorial board. Unbelievable.

[Pniq]

I absolutely luv the part where Couric asks "can you think of any?" while rubbing her lower lip with her finger as if to mean, come on, you can do better than that.

This lady rocks!!!!

[packerfans]

I know the name of a good constitutional law professor Sarah could consult with...

lol

[apatheticmoth]

nice.

[poster1122]

Here's a thought question. No one is around to check on you, so be honest. If Obama were asked how many carrier groups the US has, and he couldn't answer that, would that make him "unqualified" to be President?

It's not an answer that rolls off the tongue either. And one can certainly make the case that the next commander-in-chief should know what he'll be commanding. Would this shake your support for him, if he didn't know the answer? Again, no one's watching, so be honest about this.

To my mind, a President or Vice President needs to know the issues that relate to each of the Executive's duties. I don't expect technical expertise in every area; that for me is unrealistic. My trouble with Palin is that she went on camera and advocated spending 700 billion of my dollars and couldn't explain why this was needed.

Now that is a gaffe worth focusing on.

[packerfans]

The reason why this is a very, very important question is because the make up the the US
Supreme Court is hanging in the balance and will be determined by the next president.

These appointments will steer our country for as long as these judges live. A very scary proposal.

[poster1122]

And knowing about the military capacities of the US isn't a very, very important question? We are currently in two wars right now, after all.

[tuckerboundsisadouchebag]

It's not that Palin couldn't name a Supreme Court case that is making people say she is unqualified. It's that every answer she gives makes her seem less and less "presidential", even to those who want to support her.

If Obama hadn't been able to name a Supreme Court case, I think we'd all give him a pass because he has demonstrated that he knows a lot about a lot, and probably just had a minor brain freeze.

But you can't play the brain freeze card every time. (Just like you can't play the POW card every time).

[BlueMominaRedState]

Once again I will remind you, this is the woman being sold to the "christian" conservative base as their hedge against McCain's supposed "liberalism." They are being fed the idea that she is pro-life. It's the wedge issue that keeps unthinking, uncritical pro-lifers in the fold.

She didn't know Bolton.

She didn't know Casey.

She didn't know either Carhart.

She should have known those cases even if her pea brain couldn't did back to high school history and pull up some of the infamous ones. Plessy, Dred Scott, Buck V Bell etc

[poster1122]

I disagree here. These cases are ancillary to Roe, clarifying (or expanding on, depending on your point of view) the central holding of Roe. They're basically fights on the margins. Just because you care about abortion doesn't mean you have to care about every side battle. If Roe goes, the others fall with them. So, no I don't think a pro-lifer needs to know the specifics of these cases. Just what the current status of abortion is.

[packerfans]

I asked my 14 year old to name a supreme court case-

She named THREE.

What? No Civics classes up there in Alaska?