A couple of days ago, Jonathan Martin mentioned a particularly disturbing SECRET video that CBS News was sitting on from the ongoing Couric-Palin Sessions. Palin, supposedly, was asked some question about the Supreme Court and couldn’t discuss any other case beyond Roe Vee Wade: “There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.” Of course Jonathan Martin and his media vulture friends are all rumormongering liar Muslims who like smearing Palin because of racism and blood fetish. Then again, CBS has released some of the questions Couric asks in tonight’s installment, and one of them is: “Why do you think Roe v. Wade is a good or bad decision? What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?” Ruh roh. Although maybe Palin was only silent because CBS then started airing the Michelle Obama Whitey Tape?? [TPM Election Central]
Much-Hyped Pinnacle Of Palin Retardation To Air Tonight
Previous post: John McCain Hates Iowa Editor Lady
Next post: Moose Killer Sarah Palin Will Save Hunting Industry
{ 93 comments }
“I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it.”
…I think I found a preview of what to expect during the debate.
My god, Katie Couric is starting to remind me of my high school American History teacher… in a good way.
“Hey look — Superman!” (runs away)
Until we see the video, here’s another fucking retarded thing she said to Couric:
Gov. PALIN: I have quite a few people who are giving us information about the record of Obama and Biden, and at the end of the day, though, it is–it’s so clear, again, what those choices are. Either new ideas, new energy and reform of Washington, DC, or more of the same.
?????
http://www.strike-the-root.com/82/herman/herman5.html
Your victory for the governorship, Sarah, was due less to your brilliant accomplishments—since you had none—then to Murks’ blundering, stupidity and nepotism.
This guy is awesome, even though he looks like a cross between Rod Stewart and Owen Wilson
Is it possible to overdose on Schadenfreude?
Could you imagine if she’d been all: “Nintendo v. Nyko” and then come prepared to discuss the foibles of current patent law? She’d win every geek’s heart and catapult McCain into the Whitehouse.
But of course, she’s Sarah Palin, so… FAIL.
Even more proof that Palin is doomed. Any such question that she doesn’t know the answer to shoulda brought the retort, “At least I didn’t give my husband colon cancer, beeyotch.”
[re=116773]Delicious[/re]: “Duh duh duh dee dumb dee dumb blah blah” is apparently a valid response. I’m gonna run me for teh Presdent!
“Supreme Court in what respect, Katie?”
Well, obviously she’s aware of the Miranda case and exercised her right to remain silent yet stupid.
I watched her interview yesterday and it occurs to me that she may be dyslexic. She kept saying things like, “I don’t think we can blame all of man’s activities on global warming.” (She said that more than once.)
Whateves. I still think she’s the bomb. After the coming financial apocalypse, what’s more important? The ability to recite a dissertation on the effects of Plessy v Ferguson in urban education or the ability to kill, butcher and prepare wild game?
Brown vs. the Board of Education was about school uniforms.
oh, and the Scopes Monkey Trial was a game for Nintendo.
Roe vs Wade? Aren’t those option for crossing the Kuskokwim River?
[re=116777]grendel[/re]: Nope. That’s why it’s the ultimate high.
…frankly I’m just surprised at the fact start recalling old “Judge Judy” episodes in an attempt to fill time.
When asked about other Supreme Court cases Sarah Palin replied:
“Well, Katie there’s Kramer vs. Kramer and Alien vs. Predator.
A mind is a terrible thing to expose.
Her silence was masking the unsaid, “You know, the one where the blacks got to go to school, with Rosa Parks and with equalities against the racisms. And also The Bridges versus Madison County, I recall…”
Jeebus in a business suit wasn’t the EXXON VALDIZ case THIS year, and wasnt’ it in ALASKA?
“I’ll get back to ya!”
I just hope that Couric asks her to name all nine of the current Supreme Court Justices. Heh.
Muslins
[re=116802]dano[/re]: Bah! And don’t forget Spy vs. Spy
I heard she gave an anecdote about Brown V Board of Ed. that went something like this: “I think it’s morally reprehensible that Brown V Board of Education let the coons get learn’d.” And so it was that the McCain campaign locked up the crucial Mississippi vote.
And I know what you are thinking, but of course she reads MAD magazine. Even if she is dyslexic. I mean, duh!
[re=116804]TGY[/re]: During KO’s “Sarah, you are no Dan Quayle” rant last night, the guy from the WashPo quoted the old Quayle version of that line: What a waste it is to lose one’s mind.
At least that made sense. Nothing Barbie says seems to.
Supreme Court? Is that a pizza place?
Dressed up, like a car crash, the wheels are turning but your upside down.
Did Caribou Barbie miss Bush v. Gore? Or is that just what happens when the First Dude goes “moose” hunting?
[re=116820]Kev-O-Tron[/re]:
it is where you get good in the Supreme Mall
[re=116790]mackensie[/re]: Win. There’s also Brown versus the Board of Education which everyone can recite the verdict in that schoolteacher-Peanuts wonh-wonh voice.
I’m such a tard, I meant “food”
It reminds me of the old SNL Celebrity Jeopardy sketches
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSkWW0tgJZs
“Just write down the number of fingers I am holding up right now. There are three of them. Just write it down. Governor Palin, you’ve written…’boobs’… and the campaign has reached a new low”
Oh great and now there’s this. You can thank me later.
http://palinbingo.com/
[re=116820]Kev-O-Tron[/re]: Similar to a pizza place. The answers you give at the Supreme Court have very little relevance to the outside world and “gotcha” questions rule the day. Pizza there sucks, though.
She missed a golden opportunity to quote Tina Fey and just say “Blergh!”. Meta meta.
[re=116835]sarahconnor[/re]: Nice! But it needs drinking rules.
I can’t remember EVER being excited about the nightly news. I’ve got BIG plans for tonight! A good bottle or wine and this hilarious, made-for-tv comedy called CBS Evening News. The best thing about McCain’s veep selection is that it’s keeping me away from happy hour so that I can watch the destruction of the GOP Live!
I’ve said it before: this shit’s better than porn. No wait! With Palin it’s like watching S&M porn with the clothes on.
My paranoia says this just more lowering of expectations. Cutesy Couric In Cahoots With Callow Candidate!!!
Maybe that’s just what I get for reading Politico…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14158.html
[re=116790]mackensie[/re]: LOL!!
[re=116834]SixThirty[/re]:
Oh, God that was far funnier than it deserved to be.
You know, the more I hear McCain talk about Palin, the more I realize that he really does put country first. There was really no better VP candidate that could guarantee a loss for the Republican ticket, thus ensuring an Obama victory and ushering in a new era of peace and prosperity for our nation.
God bless John McCain for this gift.
After the election, she’s going straight to the Witless Protection Program.
I love to see her fail as much as the next guy, but i’m ambivalent about that question. that one DID seem like gotcha journalism to me, and just because mccain, biden, and obama could all have dissertated on it, doesn’t mean it really served any purpose except to make her look dumb. which she is. but still, come on.
This has all the makings of the greatest Rickroll ever.
One of these days she’s going to get a question and her head is just going to explode, Scanners style. Sounds like the Supreme Court question almost did it. Someone yell out a question on trade policy, see if any visible smoke comes out of her ears.
http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/
[re=116862]mr guy[/re]: Yeah, being well-versed about the Supreme Court is totally pointless.
“Gotcha journalism” = “A Question Palin is too dumb to answer”
Next time throw in Alice v. Toklas. I’m just trying to help.
CBS reserved a table at Chuck-E-Cheese for this interview, so she can feel comfortable.
[re=116862]mr guy[/re]: If she couldn’t at least whip out Gore vs. Bush, that’s an EPIC fail. But on the topic of whether it’s a fair question, it absolutely is. In fact, knowledge of the work of the Supreme Court is central to the job of the Vice President.
Who approves Supreme Court nominees? The Senate.
Who is President of the Senate? The Vice President, who must cast the deciding vote in the case of a tie.
These interviews are like an AP Government exam that never ends. Sometimes I wonder how a Governor can be so fucking stupid. The fry dude at McDonalds, totally, but a Governor? Then I think, maybe if I had gone to several crap colleges, coasted through life on pageant skillz, and lived amongst enabling morans, I too could be Vice President.
[re=116812]Min[/re]: all nine??? sweet jeebus but i would fucking faint if she could name just one!!!
[re=116766]Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin[/re]: I can’t define pornography, but i know what i like.
[re=116786]bearbait[/re]: re: dyslexia
Don’t dare you try to draw into us this!
Wasn’t there an important case in 2000 with Al Gore and some other guy who got almost as many votes as him? The other guy was related to Jeb Bush if I recall correctly… What was that other fella’s name? Oh well, fuck it, how important could it have been anyway…
[re=116769]sarahconnor[/re]: my girl said she wanted to have a 3-way with me and Katie… so I got that going for me… which is nice.
So I thought this was about naming another Supreme court case, period. That’s a softball.
This is actually a very hard question; I went to law school a million years ago, and while I can name lots of Supreme court cases, I can’t think of many off the top of my head that I disagree with. Dred Scott. Plessy v. Ferguson. Schenk v. US. Bush v. Gore (but I don’t think she disagrees with that one). Basically its a bunch of old cases that have since been overruled or narrowed.
I’m no Palin apologist, but its totally a gotcha question. I put it to you forum, off the top of your head, no googling, what Supreme Court Cases (other than these) do you disagree with?
[re=116788]pdiddycornchips[/re]: And reproduce prodigiously. Mustn’t forget that.
[re=116901]NoWireHangers[/re]: she’s gubnor of alaska…
nuf said!
[re=116848]ProfessorJukes[/re]: Keep in mind that those were three party debates, and based on the Politico story, she apparently didn’t say much of substance. So yes, she may be good at one-liners in certain circumstances. Biden’s job is to keep it low key and issue-oriented.
Anyway, I doubt she’s just pretending to be a retard. Someone else here used this line before, but I think it’s good enough to repeat: you never go full retard. No one sane would ever intentionally lower the bar to the extremes that she has during her initial, defining, weeks on the national stage.
[re=116935]kidcroesus[/re]: One problem – no one here is running for VP. More importantly, any asshole can name one of those few you mentioned. Lastly, she could have responded the way you did if she didn’t know, and said “Wow, that’s a tough question…”, and rattled off at least one case, or maybe another of her incoherent, roundabout sentences.
To sit there dumbfounded and silent makes her look even more ridiculous than she already is.
[re=116938]OzoneTom[/re]:
Word. Let’s review….
She’s not smart.
She’s hot.
She can cook.
She’s likes to f*ck.
She hates condoms.
She’s religious but makes exceptions for her own behavior and that of those close to her.
Tell me again, why am I supposed to hate her? I want her to be the next Mrs. Cornchips.
[re=116935]kidcroesus[/re]: As magic titty has pointed out, Bridges v. Madison County was a terrible movie.
[re=116935]kidcroesus[/re]: I could have given you Dredd Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson, no problem. And Korematsu, about the internment of Japanese Americans. But if she’s been so gosh darned involved in government that she can’t name a single Alaskan case that went to the US Supreme Court and returned with an unfavorable ruling, ever? That’s a little odd. You know that there would have to have been more than a few. You’d think she’d at least know that.
[re=116935]kidcroesus[/re]: Or she could have said “no, I can’t think of any that I strongly disagree with” or listed a few cases and spoken off the cuff about it and that would have been the end of it. I’m no lawyer but I could easily answer that question.
[re=116962]magic titty[/re]: yes, Kidcroesus… what Magic Titty said.
[re=116802]dano[/re]: And of course America wouldn’t be where it is today without the landmark decision of Foreman v. Ali.
[re=116935]kidcroesus[/re]: Roe v. Wade. Definitely. They should have allowed for coat-hanger abortions.
[re=116935]kidcroesus[/re]: But that’s the thing. Any fool caught offguard with this question would just spit out “Dred Scott.” Stupid answer, but good enough to avoid perpetual derision. Dred Scott is also code language for the anti-Roe crowd, so they would find this answer perfectly adequate. She could also win over the terror tards with Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Boumediene v. Bush, or Rasul v. Bush. And she could follow up on Roe with Webster, Planned Parenthood, and Stenberg — easy pot shots without controversy for the anti-Roe crowd.
Not a hard question at all. Someone who may be appointing Justices within the next four years absolutely must have an answer to this question. In fact, there are about 50 vastly harder legal questions that I would consider absolute prerequesites for a presidential candidate. The fact that most Americans can’t answer these questions is irrelevant. We shouldn’t elect average imbeciles as VP, period.
No mercy for the retard.
[re=116935]kidcroesus[/re]: When you’re running on a party platform with an “anti-activist judges” plank, you should really know a decision or two that your party disagrees with. Like, for example, the decision this past summer to recognize the habeas corpus rights of Guantanamo detainees, which McCain has campaigned against? She didn’t need to even know the case name to look credible, although a few seconds on Google will tell you that it is Boumediene v. Bush.
[re=116789]Tawmn[/re]: And Miranda v. Arizona was about Carmen Miranda wanting to vacation in Arizona, but she didn’t have a visa (that’s what the ‘v’ represents).
I disagree with the entire mandate of the Supreme Court. It should be entirely up to Diana Ross.
[re=117008]Godot[/re]: and wasn’t that decision mocked mercilessly in her own shitty nomination acceptance speech at the RNC? it’s clearer than ever that words fall out of her pitbull lips, but she has no idea of there meaning.
I agree that asking Palin to cite cases is a little gotcha-esque. A better question would be, “what do you think governments should be able to do, that unelected judges aren’t letting them do?”
Better yet, ask this of every conservative whenever he/she bloviates about activist judges.
do you think in 35 or so years there will be a play and a movie called “Couric Palin” about the historic interviews between the greatest journalist of our lifetime (not mccain’s lifetime of course, that’s wm randolph hearst or grantland rice) and the greatest american woman of all time?
[re=117041]applejacks[/re]: You’re 100% right.
From Palin’s own nomination acceptance speech: “Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?”
“He” of course being Obama. McCain came out BIG against the Supreme Court Gitmo rulings regarding trials of suspected terrorists. The speech writers were obviously referencing those rulings. But she shouldn’t be required to remember or understand a ruling she herself referenced in what was probably her most rehearsed speech ever, should she? Sigh…
[re=117041]applejacks[/re]: Too true. I’m starting to think she learned her convention speech phonetically, like Sammo Hung on the first season of “Martial Law”.
Is Sarah Palin just an average “Joe six-pack” type of guy? Find out here: http://chrishowell.com/2008/10/01/sarah-palin-elitist/
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that a candidate for vice president should know at least two Supreme Court cases she disagrees with. Nor would it be unreasonable for her to flip the question around and say, “Well, Katie, I’ve had concerns about Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. I’m sure you know what that was about.” And then watch Katie Couric gulp and move on.
If she’s from Alaska, why does she sound like a character from “Fargo”?
[re=117160]pat robertsons personal trainer[/re]: Isn’t Couric Palin the name of one of Sarah Palin’s kids?
[re=117194]disgustedcitizen[/re]: It is funny you should ask, because Slate just explained it in detail. http://www.slate.com/id/2201318/
[re=116964]pdiddycornchips[/re]: Ugh, where is Sara K. Smith when you need her?
[re=116935]kidcroesus[/re]: Good point. She has 50 examples of her abject idiocy, but this question is cutting it close. I’m not sure Obama would have been able to answer the question on the spot. I think it would have been smart for her to answer “Well, I’m not going to be able to spit out case names for you, but I disagree with the Supreme Court’s interpretation on….” and spit out more than just Roe v. Wade.
Me, being a few years out of law school, I can’t think of too many cases. I’d like to think that I would have thought of Dred Scott, Korematsu & Bush v. Gore, but I saw those in the comments before I replied. The only other one or two I can think of are Adarand v Pena (affirmative action case, and one Palin would definitely agree with, rather than criticize) and wow… I’m drawing a blank. Any of the 1920′s Laissez-Faire cases (before the New Deal justices came in) do come to mind.
Coincidentally, I’m pro choice, and I do not want it to be overturned, but Roe v. Wade is a terrible exercise in jurisprudence. They could have arrived at the same decision in a much more legally sound manner.
[re=116915]Giant Robot[/re]: The other fellow’s name was Chad.
holy crap, according to the rating no one is watching this
Looks like Sarah Palin cant help everybody
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/arts/television/01rati.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=television&pagewanted=print
In July, Palin issued a statement about Exxon v. Baker; her exact quote was “I am extremely disappointed by today’s decision by the US Supreme Court”. And she didn’t remember. She’s a complete idiot, and it’s ridiculous to suggest that Couric’s question was unfair.
http://www.undiplomatic.net/2008/10/01/forget-bush-v-gore-palin-forgot-about-exxon-v-baker/
I’d fuck her.
[re=116901]NoWireHangers[/re]: “Morons..” not “morans…” Not the first time I’ve seen this exact error… don’t be the pot (that insults the kettle due to the kettle’s dark persuasion)…
[re=117357]23 Skidoo[/re]: No, terrible point, seriously. Can we stop with the, “gee, I can only name a few myself” crap already? As has been said a dozen times already, you’re not running for VP. And Christ, where did you and kidcroesus go to law school? If Dred Scott and Korematsu are the only things you can come up with, you should be disbarred. Moreover, the tundra tard couldn’t even remember these obvious turds. An if she were paying any attention during the last decade, she would have cited one of the many other cases cited above. I also expect her (the potential number 2 in the executive branch) to, at the very least, have a position on the aweful unitary executive theory. If she’s pro-unitary executive, she sould have said no to Humphreys Executor and Morrison v. Olson (and probably Marbury v. Madison and a million other cases, honestly). Otherwise, she might have said no to Myers v. U.S. for the opposite proposition. If she wanted to be funny, she should have also said McConnell v. FEC. But she did none of that. Blank. Fucking. Stare. Not good.
[re=117449]Worst_of_the_Best[/re]: FYI, this is actually just a charming Wonkette weird inside joke/reference (viz: WALNUTS!), not nowirehangers being a moran–it comes from this delightful image.
[re=117480]Vewol Mevemont[/re]: Terrible point? Really? Do you think Al Gore, Walter Mondale or any other vice presidents would have been able to cite cases on the spot? In an ideal world, yes, the Vice President should be well versed in notable decisions of our nation’s highest court, as should be any of our lawmakers. And I agree with you, there is a difference between me and a VP candidate not being able to come up with cases. Oh, and in response to your snarky recommendation that I be “disbarred”, I am a real estate attorney, so there’s no need for me to be well versed in Supreme Court caselaw. Congratulations on being well versed in this area. I’d give you a fucking cookie right now if I knew where you were.
But dude, this is the real world. A VP need not be able to answer that question. Again, she should be able to comment on general trends in the law (or BS her way through it). She should certainly know about decisions that affected Alaska while she was the state’s freaking Governor. But in my opinion, it’s just not reasonable to go after her on not knowing Supreme Court cases. And really, it’s a waste of time to try to make hay out of this, when there are five hundred other things that ably demonstrate she is as dumb as they come.
[re=117480]Vewol Mevemont[/re]: While you are right that the standard of a VP should be higher than that of an ex-lawyer or forum troller, the most effective approach to defeating Sarah Palin should be to point out the areas where she is demonstrably less able than the average American, not the average VP candidate. Because that’s (regrettably) the standard most Americans are holding her to. But happily, she is inferior to many Americans on a whole slew of issues. For example many have matriculated from one college, traveled the world, and understand that you can’t learn anything about foreign policy by observing a nearby land mass.
So, you hit her with softballs and she flails, thats great. You hit her with trick questions and gotcha questions that most people (yourself excluded) wouldn’t know either, then it becomes a story about how the media is ganging up on her.
Btw…Mcconnell, Humphreys, and Morrison mean nothing to me. Two of them sound familiar. Maybe if I googled them it would come back, but like Palin, I don’t deal with them on a day to day basis. I do remember Palsgraff has some very exciting moments with exploding packages on a train.
Comments on this entry are closed.