Why What Palin Doesn't Know About the Supreme Court Matters

It's my job as the Media Campaign Coordinator at the National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights to think a lot about the courts and about how to get other folks to also think about the courts. As someone who believes in and works for civil rights, I think it's crucially important for the public to be aware of the role of the courts in the fight to reinstate and then eventually seek continued progress on civil rights.

Part of why our democracy is so incredible is because of the roles our Constitution and our justice system play in protecting rights and liberties. As the Supreme Court itself has said, "Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be." The Supreme Court has often played a proud role in the forming of this country's civil rights story.

Brown v. Board!

Loving v. Virginia!

Roe v. Wade!

Lawrence v. Texas!

Or, if you're actually more a fan of rolling back civil rights, rather than making progress on them, you likely have your own list of favorite cases.

If you're a woman, perhaps one running for one of the highest positions of power in this country, and your running mate is someone who is horribly proud of the disaster of a decision that is Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co, you likely know all about the case and how Lily Ledbetter is a key example of how women still don't receive equal pay for equal work in this country. This fact would be even more likely if you were running on the Republican ticket with a man who had voted against Congress' attempt to fix the harm caused by this decision, but then held a town hall, which you also participated in, where he said that he would, in fact, later on, maybe, I guess, propose legislation that would fix the decision. (Despite his recent act of not voting for such legislation.)

Are you a member of the NRA? Do you like to shoot moose? Do you think it's fun to shoot wolves from airplanes? Chances are decent you have heard of DC V. Heller.

Are you the Governor of Alaska? You likely don't need me to remind you of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government. Or, well, any of the many, many Supreme Court cases that change the legal structure in which you as a governor work within.

This is a part of my job, you see. I take Supreme Court cases and then highlight how they play a role in lives of people who are affected by them.

Say you were running on a ticket for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, I would explain to you how Bush v. Gore might mean something to your life. Only, well, I would hope that I wouldn't have to.

A part of why I work to engage the public around the role of the courts is so that they can monitor and encourage action by the elected officials who play a role in selecting those who sit on our courts. As a civil rights activist, I always thought my worst fear was an elected official who saw the courts as a weapon to work against civil rights. It never occurred to me that one of the highest offices in our country could be held by someone who doesn't even know anything the Supreme Court of the United States has ever done, other than Roe v. Wade.

Ladies and gentlemen, as you've perhaps read by now, such a candidate does exist, it's the one who wears lipstick and shoots moose. It's the one who just got her passport last year, met her first head of state last week, and is seeking the Vice Presidency alongside a 72 year old Presidential candidate who has battled cancer four times:

"Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.

The Palin aide, after first noting how 'infuriating' it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.

After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.

There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence."

Estimates have it that the next President of these United States could appoint up to three Supreme Court Justices. Three lifetime positions to the highest court in the nation. Three individuals who will play crucial roles in major decisions that will help shape in which direction that long arc of justice bends as time moves forward.

Sarah Palin can't name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade!

I'm sorry, I know I've written that already, but it's just to hard for me to comprehend, so I might need to write it a few more times as well.

I'm supposed to spend some time today thinking about the fact that 77% of Americans could name two of the "seven dwarfs" from Disney's Snow White, while just 24 percent knew two of the nine Supreme Court justices, and how we can work to change that statistic. I just didn't think that I would have to conclude that maybe one of our Vice Presidential candidates could very likely be in that 77%.

The other day in a brainstorming session, I was coming up with a list of ways to further educate the public about the Supreme Court and the role its cases play in the lives of individuals and their communities. Among a few hopefully more strategic ideas, I pointed out that maybe we should make some Supreme Court playing cards that can summarize major cases and how they've changed the country. I still might keep this as a side project, but I'm thinking that it's likely that someone made Sarah Palin a set of such cards in advance of Thursday's debate. Maybe I could just borrow hers.

Read more analysis from HuffPost bloggers on Sarah Palin

Comments

[UrsaMajority]

Uh, I believe the question was about decisions she disagreed with. Admittedly, I'm a lawyer and am a little more attuned than most folks about legal decisions. But, even if she can't come up with the actual names off the top of her head, three decisions live in infamy and should be known by every American who went past the fifth grade:

1. The Dred Scott decision, which ruled that a slave who'd escaped to the north would have to be returned to his Southern owner;

2. Plessy v. Ferguson, which created the rule that "separate but equal" accomodations, schools, etc. past Constitutional muster, even if segregated, and was only overturned by Brown v. Board of Education; and

3. Korematsu v. United States, which upheld internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II.

[RightWingMarine]

If a news organization had something this inflammatory about either candidate, news that would be historic in its precedent, news that would garner huge ratings when it aired and for the talking heads to discuss... do any of us truly believe that that news agency would decide to keep it hush hush?

I looked at the National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights but I'm not sure what rights they want to restore. What rights have we lost? Have Jim Crow laws been revived? Is the eligibility to vote based on skin color? This organization complained about businesses they claim practice discrimination. So what? Why can't they? If someone owns a business and only wants to do business with a certain group of people, why shouldn't they be able to? Why does someone else get to determine how this person's business is run? Furthermore if someone does practice discrimination in who they do business with that would create an immidiate business opportunity for the next person to cater to the disenfranchised. If my action harms no one, why should I be restricted in doing it?

[BeaverJim]

Why not Morse v. Frederick? It is an Alaskan case from Juneau, the State's capital.

Oh yeah, I forgot, the Governor doesn't live in the State's capital. She collects per diem from her home.

[suec03]

If she can't or won't engage in a discussion of controversial Supreme Court decisions, what does this say about her role in filling Supreme Court vacancies if she should succeed a President McCain upon his death or incapacitation. Do Republican operatives see her as an empty vessel who can be handed a nomination paper and be told "just sign here?"

[somefool]

To be fair to Palin, I've read that the question was about cases she 'disagreed with" and that she couldn't name any. That would limit the damage somewhat, though this may just be spin.

[jqcitizen]

somefool-

If the question was clearly about Supreme Court decisions she DISAGREED with, it seems to me that anyone who has lived in Alaska and a commercial fisherman, would never forget the bailout the court granted to EXXON over the oil spill disaster a decade ago. -Might be she agrees with that decision.

The court ruled that EXXON does owe fisherman and others, but reduced the damages by several billion dollars. The next question before the court is whether or not EXXON should have to pay interest on this long overdue debt. Apparently Palin hopes the court doesn't charge this 'POOR' oil company interest on payments that should have been made years ago.

[somefool]

I'm always amazed that more people don't take Supreme picks more into account when picking a Pres. Republicans have had a majority on the Court for years and yet Mitt Romney was complaining about the liberal Court during his convention speech. What Liberals?

[XME]

It's important because it show her complete lack of knowledge and interest in ANYTHING not related to Alaska.

[JodyMcg]

The 5th graders that I taught could name Roe v. Wade and Brown vs. Board then they had to research and write about 3 more cases to share with the class. I guess Palin was moose huntin' and skippin' school. Seriously, people wake up!!! If you live in a cave and haven't decided who to vote for do some basic research and read just a little. Google Palin's record. Go to www.mybarackobama.com and look at the issues and information. Your basic freedom and civil rights will be at stake if Palin gets to choose 3 Supreme Court judges. NO SARAH JUDGE JUDY IS NOT AN ANSWER.

[sstern]

I am getting worried that too many folks are getting overly bogged down in what would be reasonable discourse in normal times, which in my opinion does not apply anymore re: the GOP Platform or these particular times. It does not matter to the GOP what Palin knows, only what she believes. This is a very, very important distinction. I urge people to become educated with the entire Texas GOP Platform2008 as an example of the GOP in its most conservative form. Then please look very thoroughly into the Council for National Policy, which runs the national GOP platform. This is not about the Supreme Court, American voters, or even about individual candidates. It is about the struggle for the ascendence of the extreme right wing conservative GOP platform.

[JonG345]

Just wrote to CBS news demanding that they release the full, unedited portion of their interview with Governor Palin regarding the supreme court.

You should too

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_form.shtml

[MamaBird62]

Good point Jon. We need to hear what was actually asked, and Palin's reply (if any.)

[socalgal59]

As a governor, Palin signs state legislation into law. When a piece of legislation is placed in front of Palin for her signature, she should know whether it comports to the Constitution of the United States, the Alaska Constitution, Alaska State Supreme Court mandates, and the United States Supreme Court mandates.

Legislation does not become law until the governor signs it. Thus, the governor is the guardian of her constituents' constitutional liberties and civil rights.

[Lon]

TalkingPointsMemo is now reporting that the question she was asked was to name a court decision that she disagrees with other than Roe. That does limit the options a bit. And of course most that she could name would be ones that would paint her as an extremist. (She could come out against Lawrence or Miranda but she has been playing down that image a bit). Probably her safest would have been Hamdi, but that is a bit further down on the list of decisions everyone should know.

[CarolineKS]

Kelo comes to mind as an easy one to disagree with -- though it does come out strongly in support of states' rights. Though what red-blooded conservative couldn't rally a cry against govt takings and eminent domain?

[MamaBird62]

I was horrified to hear the first report that Palin couldn't name any SC cases other than Roe. The story seems a little different now.
Palin is a such a calculating political gamer that if she doesn't have a scripted, McCain-approved answer she probably won't give one at all. That doesn't mean she can't name more cases (we really don't know what she knows), or that she doesn't disagree with any other than Roe. She knows when staying silent or spouting meaningless generalities is less harmful than a truthful answer.
I think that's what happened with the question about her news reading habits, she hasn't cleared that with the McCain campaign and didn't want to say anything that would get her in trouble.
This woman is not stupid. She's calculating, poorly educated and ignorant of many important issues. But it seems that she's brilliant at rehearsed sound bite answers that reach people emotionally and cause them to connect with her personally, while not saying anything meaningful at all or even answering the question.
I sincerely hope that Gwen Ifill doesn't let her get away with it.
Watch out Joe Biden.

[Biracial1]

She is on record to be against the ruling of Exxon v Baker, why didn't she say that.

[Henry]

The state of Oregon has a law twice affirmed by the vote which enables death with dignity. This law was challenged by the Ashcroft Justice Department and eventually went to the SC. The new lead of the Supremes, Justice Roberts voted against the people of the state of Oregon in an astounding expression of right wing double talk as can be invented. The state of Oregon won this decision none the less. I wonder where a Palin lead in the government fits with respect to this "right" of the individual.

[dapperd72]

To answer your valid inquiry, Palin declared in no uncertain terms during the 2006 Alaska Gubernatorial debate that she opposes "death with dignity" for the same reason she opposes abortion in all circumstances. She told the moderator, "I would choose life." Identical to Ashcroft's position, she categorically opposes an individual right to euthanasia, regardless of the situation. My maternal grandmother, after she was diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease), as she lay on her home death bed (after a lifetime of vigorous physical activity), said she would hire Dr. Jack Kevorkian if she had her druthers to put her out of her misery. If Sarah Palin (who ironically has the same spelling of her given name as my grandmother) had her way, my grandmother would have suffered much worse agony. Palin clearly has no compassion for the most suffering members of society. It matters not whether they be rape victims or terminally ill patients who value the *quality of life*, let alone nonhuman animals. Any woman who votes for McCain/Palin, especially those who claim to have campaigned for Clinton, desperately need lengthy psychological counseling before they go within a mile of any voting booth.