Her comments on the right to privacy are positively twisted. In one sentence it is a Constitutional guarantee, in the next a state matter.

http://palincounter.blogspot.com/

The question wasn't what other recent Supreme Court decisions did she disagree with, it was simply what Supreme Court decisions. That opens up several hundred years' worth. You'd think a politician might have some ideas? But if you do insist on recent ones, how about the Supreme Court's June decision cutting the awards related to the Exxon Valdez spill? Surely Palin would resent this on behalf of her concerned constituents?

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/court_slices_exxon_valdez_dama.html

"Let me instead give you an example of a ruling I agree with."

Oh wait, this is Sarah Palin we're talking about. Who couldn't name a single magazine she reads. (My guess: "People" and "US".)

Does she agree with Hamdan v. Runsfeld? At least that one should have come to mind. Or does Palin think the Geneva Conventions should apply to Guantanamo detainees?

Heck, does she even know what the Geneva Conventions are?

Not only did Exxon v. Davis affect the state of which she is the governor, but she actually released a statement at the time opposing the decision! That's right, she opposed a SCOTUS ruling this year and still couldn't come up with it. One incurious George is enough for this century.

She couldn't name any because clearly she doesn't know squat.

Half the time when she twists through her muddled Republican talking points mixed in with her personal thoughts, she sounds almost like she would be a Democrat if she wasn't too frikin' ignorant to know it. Maybe if she gets out of isolated Republican Bible-churchville and starts reading, she might even consider it.

But let's get real. The reason she doesn't know any other Supreme Court cases is incuriousity.

My guess for magazines would have been 'Enquirer' and 'Star'!!! That seems to be more her depth of thought.

Maybe. But then, someone who understood that particular point, would begin the answer to Couric by stating that very point, and then follow it up with reciting a couple of decisions that she agreed with turning the tables back at Couric. Plain didn't respond because Palin doesn't know any decisions pro or con that she could intelligently discuss.

With all this said, a majority of Americans probably don't even know the capitol of Alaska for that matter. BUT those Wal Matters aren't going to be placed a heartbeat away from the "codes" anytime soon. They aren't asking for support to address the myriad of problems facing this country as it continues it's slide into Third Worldly angst. Palin isn't intellectually curious enough to read news papers much less the context of the Constitution. She's not even close to being ready for a VP slot. A stint on the TV show "Survivor"? You bettcha! Picking a Supreme Court appointment? Not so much.

She's an opportunist who, like the knuckle-head who picked her, is willing to place the whole friggin' Republic into jeopardy to win an election and gain the power entitlement such a position owns. Not onlyare they scary but very, very, nauseating...

"There is going to be a lot of Sarah Palin focus at the War Room today"

One might think that winger rhetoric about "activist judges" would have ended after Bush v. Gore. But of course it's not really "activist judges" as such that they have a problem with.

But that does not matter. I have a new argument that Sarah Palin is succeeding as the VP choice - she is accomplsihing what she was hired to do. And this speaks to how pathetic McCain has been, that he cannot pull his weight.

Contrary to what many of us thought, Palin was not selected to get Hillary voters. Given her views, that was never gonna pan out. However, she was expected to:

1 - rally the evangelical base

2 - generate buzz and enthusiasm

3 - get someone young on the ticket; get a "new" narrative, as she would be the first female VP, to equal that of Obama being first AA Pres.

No where there do you see "articulate a point" or "provide new and compelling ideas".

How is she doing?

1 - they have come back, and will be a force on election day in terms of volunteering. And think about this - McCain is barely hanging on in NC (+1), IN (+3) and down a tad in CO, and losing in FL and OH. If he had not rallied the base with Palin he'd be down an additional 5% at least in these states. The race would be over.

2 - Done and done, she is the only compelling part of the ticket on the stump. They come to see her.

3 - Does for McCain what Biden does for Obama, in reverse. And allows them to tell some kind of BS story about "change".

So, I cannot find out who else would have done this for a McCain ticket. If he had Romney or Rudi he'd be looking at winning AZ and UT and a handful of others. It would be a landslide.

Palin is, in my opinion, a danger to the nation. Granted, McCain wrote off PA when he selected her, if he knew it or not. Creationism loses you the Philly suburbs, where the American Taliban-fundemantalist Christian stuff does not play.

But as far as keeping his clowning candidacy in the game, she pays off! They are losing independents to Obama, and in the first debate he failed to persuade undecides. To me, McCain is the one not pulling his weight. He is the anchor on this campaign.

Surely Palin can disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling on Lawrence v. Texas - the case that overturned Texas' Sodomy Law. But wait - to disagree with that ruling might contradict her position that the Constitution protects the right to privacy... An idiot's predicament, to be sure.

Kevin

Since she is not a lawyer, it is not really that surprising that Ms. Palin had trouble coming up with a second court case, whether it was one she agreed with or not.

Though I would like to think that anyone aspiring to be Vice President would have enough general knowledge to come up with Miranda v. Arizona (or at least the Miranda part of the title), given how strongly law and order conservatives feel about that decision.