Too much of a maverick, huh? Wonder why McCain thought that would be a virtue.
The Supreme Court clips are up on CBS.
Wow. Tomorrow night’s going to be fun.
I’m not sure which of Palin’s inane answers were the worst. That was pretty bad. I hope at some point in the debate, Ifill says:
(*really the movie Billy Madison)
First I’d like to say that I have very little political knowledge compared to the majority of you folks. But I can’t help but post one question. Obama is counting on a strong youth and Black vote, correct? Now I may be wrong, but aren’t those the two lowest groups for voter turnout?
I’m not sure who is lowest, but historically very low for both groups, yes.
ETA: I forgot to post the second half of my post:
For anyone who thinks McCain isn’t getting exactly what he wants/deserves from Palin, I give you his interview with the Des Moines Register.
Good lord, Palin’s comments on Roe v. Wade indicate that she has no understanding of the relevant legal issues. She says that she thinks there is a right to privacy in the Constitution, but that she thinks Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because the matter should be left up to the States.
Say what?
If there’s a right to privacy, then that constitutionally prohibits the States from violating it. I mean, I suppose someone could hold that the right to privacy as found in Griswold and such is fine, but it doesn’t extend as far as the court held in Roe. If you can figure out a principled distinction between the two cases, that is. But Palin obviously hasn’t ever heard of Griswold.
I mean, she can make federalism her pet constitutional topic if she likes, but then she should be able to answer Katy’s question about other decisions and complain about how the interstate commerce clause has been completely warped beyond recognition by the courts. Someone needs to buy this woman tuition for a high school civics class.
I was more put off by her inability to name a single other Supreme Court case with which she disagreed. And, from her audible sigh, the delay in answering, and her spewing of nonsense to try and answer the question, she knew she had screwed up too.
She couldn’t recite a single Supreme Court case by name, or even giving a general description of the case, that she disagreed with. I would have been happy with “That eminent domain case” (which should have been important to a mayor of a town or a governor) or “the separate but equal” case. Hell, she couldn’t even NOT answer the question intelligently by saying a case she agreed with, like Bush v. Gore or “that gun case”.
And it’s not just because of her being “overcoached” or “being restrained”. It’s because she spent her life completely uninterested in things like foreign policy, the war in Iraq, the Supreme Court, or anything else for that matter.
I think I did hear her say she liked the ones that favored local government control, and some of the older ones starring Bruce Willis.
Oh, I beg to differ. She is all too much interested in the contents of other women’s uteruses (uteri?).
McCain seems to be building for a blow, sooner or later here. For him to defend that sex ed ad, put the last nail in his coffin for me. I was never going to support him, now I don’t respect him.
Dumbass didn’t even quote one she personally spoke out against when it happened; Exxon v Baker!
That case was just decided this Summer – in JUNE – and her pea brain couldn’t even think back 3 months!
Forgot, or was told to distance herself from criticizing a decision that favored the oil industry, a large source of contributions to McCain’s campaign?
Jesus God.
From now on, whenever anybody implies I don’t have the experience/knowledge to understand something, I’ll haughtily reply, “I’m not an astronaut, but I think I know the challenges of space.”
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with him?
I thought if somebody described themselves as a Federalist, they wanted to give more power to the central government. How does this correlate with overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the decision to the individual states? Am I the one that’s wrong here? Because if not, it appears that Palin really has no concept of how government works or of the actual issues involved in Roe v. Wade.
This is the first post I’ve read in this thread, so maybe I’m missing something.
A Federalist should mean someone who wants a small federal government and most laws made by state governments. The idea is that the United States is a federation of states, so the states are the real governments (if you will) and the federal government just coordinates things and does things that have to be done on a national level (such as defense).
Yes, you are wrong. Federalism refers to the a governmental system where power is shared among local and centralized bodies.
Dear Sarah: If that “gotcha” Supreme Court question comes up in tomorrow’s debate, here are four good answers you can give. Don’t worry if you don’t actually know any details behind these cases; responses are limited to 90 seconds.
- Dred Scott vs. Sanford
- Plessy vs. Ferguson
- Schenck vs. US
- Korematsu vs. US
You’re welcome.
I think Federalists in the US were originally what you’re describing. In early days they were trying to strengthen the power of the federal government in relation to the states where Anti-Federalists were trying to limit the federal government.
But what’s been referred to as federalism or “new federalism” for a while (since Reagan?) has been the opposite–a “states rights” effort that uses the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (the ones that say “just because we didn’t mention it doesn’t mean you (or your states) don’t have the right to do it”) as the basis for a limitation on the power of the federal government.
I don’t know enough about American history to try to guess why the term shifted the way it did, or maybe it didn’t shift at all but the context shifted. I’m not sure.