Palin's greatest hits

Heading into the VP debate tomorrow night, this makes for a nice recapitulation:



(Of course, she won't end up doing all that badly in the debate. There'll be no opportunity for cross-talk or follow-up, and each question will get a wafer-thin 90-second-soundbyte of an answer. She'll platitude her way through the questions she can't answer, and steer everything else into attacks on Obama/Biden which will leave Joe [a] picking up too many pieces, and [b] unable to fire back at her, as doing so would make him look mean.)


Well. My real reason for chipping in with this post tonight is Couric's question: can you name a non-Roe Supreme Court ruling you disagree with? And Palin can't think of any - good grief. How about the ruling that Dick Cheney gets to keep secret all his deliberations in forming our national energy policy? How about Bush v. Gore?

Of course Mrs. Palin wouldn't take my side on those. So, how about Hamdan v. Rumsfeld? That's the one where our nine largely conservative justices came back saying: You know, Bush Administration, if you're going to snatch up people all around the world, torture them, and incarcerate them for the rest of their lives, then you need to do a little pro forma here. Set up a kangaroo court, announce the reason you're holding these guys, and give 'em an opportunity to claim innocence before routing them back into Bagram, Camp Delta, or one of your east-European CIA black sites. Please? Just for appearances. You're making us look bad.

Now: you know Sarah Palin opposes that. Or she would, if she had heard of it.

But she hasn't heard of it. It's in none of the magazines she reads (you know - all of them?).

--Well then, how about she just names the freaking Dred Scott case? Having completed a middle school education, this Supreme Court decision should ring a bell for her, yes?

And it fits, because what Palin did say was (to paraphrase): "in Ameerica's lahng history, ah, er, you knoohw, Katie, there arr lahts of tiymes peeple might disagreee with the coourt - and the tiymes Iye maeght disagree with 'em arr the tiymes they decided somethin' thaat it's the staeetes' rayght too deecide."

Like - the Dred Scott case. Wherein the Supreme Court argued against the right of the state (territory) of Illinois to emancipate a slave within its borders - because that would undercut the slaveowner's property rights. Talk about judicial activism - and violation of states' rights! This is exactly the sort of thing you would think Sarah Palin should oppose.

But who knows? Maybe she's pro-slavery.

She is a big Bible booster, after all.