Thompson Defends Palin: She Hasn't Seen List Of Supreme Court Cases

Sarah Palin couldn't name a Supreme Court case that she disagreed with because she had yet to be given a "list of cases to see," Fred Thompson explained Thursda, on the Early Show with CBS.

"You know, I think you got the answer there of probably almost 100 percent of non-lawyer candidates if they have not been given a list of cases to see; `They might ask you about this one, they might ask you about that one.'"

Watch CBS Videos Online

Thompson's odd defense came a the morning after CBS Evening News posted a clip of Palin unable to name a specific case she disagreed with other than Roe v. Wade. In a way, it was reflective of the tough bind in which the Alaska Governor has put her Republican defenders. While some conservatives have abandoned ship (calling on Palin to gently step out of the race), others have tried to lower the bar for acceptable standards for vice presidential candidate performance.

Thompson, for instance, suggested that it was okay for Palin not to have rudimentary knowledge of judicial history because she was not a lawyer. Of course, Palin is a journalism major but still couldn't name a news source she reads.

"Now, you could say she should have had time to go over that list," said Thompson, "and of course she will, and she'll have a chance to deal with the whole judicial side of things, which is new to people who are not lawyers."

Challenged by correspondent Maggie Rodriguez over the claim, the former Tennessee Senator -- as other members of the McCain campaign have -- turned his scorn on members of the media.

Mr. THOMPSON: She's coming in here with an array of things against her like nobody else ever has. There's a lot of people vested in her not doing well. The media...

RODRIGUEZ: But the Republicans want her to do well.

Mr. THOMPSON: She was not--she was not vetted by the media, she was not on the media short-list, the media does not like surprises, she's not giving the media access that they want. They're irritated about that.

Comments

[jacqmac]

Fred's defense is as good as The Governor's former liason in Alaska. HER defense was that The Governor was thinking AHEAD to the next question and didn't want to list any 'controversial sources' of information. In other words, she was AVOIDING any type of follow-up question. Gee WHIZ! She could have at LEAST mentioned the home town newspaper!

As for 'non-lawyers' not knowing ANY significant Supreme Court decisions-that is SO VERY LAME! However, Ms. former liason (and I THINK current campaign staffer) used the 'Thinking ahead' defense-like the 'Twinkie defense'-to attempt to cover this one too. You see-The Governor was attempting to avoid confrontation or being put in a 'bad' position by mentioning any 'controversial' court decisions, wanting AGAIN to avoid any 'sensitive' follow-up questions. Ummm---MOST people in this country learn about SIGNIFICANT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS in HIGH SCHOOL. How about that Brown v. Board of Education, Governor? Doesn't that ring a bell? Or Plessy v. Ferguson? Surely her PARENTS must have known about those.....

Lame! Lame! and Lamer!

[MGhamma]

Go back to acting Fred.......Oh..Wait..

[BrightAK]

What is more telling about Palin's response is the fact that there has just recently been a Supreme Court decision that was directly and explicitly applicable to Alaska! This of course was the Exxon ruling that came down earlier this year and was deeply unpopular with Alaskans, liberal or conservative. What is more, if she would have mentioned this ruling, she could have more solidly reaffirmed her (supposed) anti-establishment "maverick" viewpoints, and landed safely within her defense of Alaska talking points. That she did not, speaks (very disconcertingly) to a profound ignorance of not only national, but local (Alaskan) politics, or (perhaps more disconcertingly) to simple stupidity in not remembering one of the most important judicial/economic rulings to have ever effected the state over which she governs.

[retrocozayshin]

It goes beyond ignorance.... Here she is discussing the Exxon ruling only a few months ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H-26MOxH34

[Oridaman]

Even a C student can name some famous court cases: Plessey(sp?) v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, Brown v. board of Education, etc, etc.

[wheatsavage]

Since when is Fred Thompson a genius? Anyone can act for crying out loud!

[gtpeds]

"Now, you could say she should have had time to go over that list," said Thompson, "and of course she will, and she'll have a chance to deal with the whole judicial side of things, which is new to people who are not lawyers."
Mr. Thompson was right, Sarah Paiin does not have enough time to study and memorized all this stuff. She would have been better off if she watched Law and Order in Alaska.

[demandfortruth]

she should have said that precedent court cases won't serve a purpose in a mccain/palin whitehouse, just as they havn't served a purpose in the bush/cheney whitehouse. at least that is honest.

[IllinoisTexan43]

G*od, everytime I see or hear that man he reminds me of a Grand Wizard. Just plain creeps me out!

[the964kid]

Is it me, or is Fred Thompson basically the worst surrogate around?

His campaign went only a little further then mine.

[AlfredaPrufrock]

Funny, Palin couldn't name a Supreme Court case, but in late June she was all over Alaska television, talking about Exxon v. Baker, which reduced the Exxon clean-up payment from 2.5 billion to 500 million. That had a big impact on fishermen in her state.

But wait. Even though she and her husband were ostensibly in the fishing industry at the time, they didn't file for payment from the settlement, so Exxon v. Baker wasn't really important to her personally.

I would expect a governor of a state who was affected by a court settlement of significant financial impact to her constituents, to know the name of the case, especially when she spoke about it publicly 8 weeks ago.

The debate went something like this:

Q: What's the difference between an orange and a tangeriune:
Biden: Although both are citrus fruits, there are significant differences, including taste and texture of the peel.
Palin: A t-shirt. Because motorcycles don't have doors.

[Philly Gadfly]

Don't people still study history and civics in high school?

[MizK]

Hush Fred "Foghorn Leghorn" Thompson! Are you acting or telling the truth?

[Chris1234]

Which list are you referring to Senator Thompson? The secret list of Supreme Court decisions? Cmon - I am embarrassed for you, and I dont even like you.

To suggest that a non-lawyer who wants to be No.2 executive of the USA would somehow naturally be unfamiliar with even one major decision of the US Supreme Court aside from Roe v. Wade is so brazenly stupid that you should be ashamed. I give you credit as possessing enough intelligence not actually to believe this utterance, which sadly just makes you a parroting schill with zero integrity.
Quite a performance. I guess even a small chance at a future executive appointment is worth one idiotic soundbite.

[unstableandangry]

Fred looked and sounded much more convincing on Law and Order!

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

Probably because most of the plots on L & O are plausible.

[arcticknight]

Sarah Palin may not have seen a list of Supreme Court cases but as the governor of Alaska you would think she would mention the Supreme Court decision of Alaska v. Exxon which was recently decided that denied Alaskans relief from the greatest oil spill in Alaskan and U.S. History.

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

I'd think that a so-called Feminist of her standing would have a very strong opinion on Ledbetter v. Goodyear, equal pay for women, but no dice, just crickets.