Sarah Palin, our well-read legal scholar

I love it. Sarah Palin now says she reads the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Economist, and objects to Supreme Court decisions regarding eminent domain, the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the death penalty. And if only Katie Couric hadn’t pissed her off, she’d have told us earlier.

As you’ll see, even Fox’s Carl Cameron can’t take her seriously.

(Links now fixed.)

Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

7 thoughts on “Sarah Palin, our well-read legal scholar”

  1. The video was a little tough to get to, at least for me. I finally searched TPM for “Couric” and got to the link in question.Ouch. When a Republican is nailed by Carl Cameron, it’s pretty much game over, isn’t it?Also, is imminent domain simply eminent domain that’s about to happen any minute now? And is a “heinious” crime a heinous crime committed by a genius?Don’t even get me started on the prospect of four more years of “nucular” power. I mean, English is her first language, right?

  2. Nicely put, Dan.What I liked best:The Kelo case, also, with eminent domain, that affects me as a governor, it affected me as a mayor, also. Private property rights are so precious in this nation. And for the Supreme Court to have sided with government, instead of the people, the property owners, on that, that was frustrating.It affects her as a governor, affected her as a mayor, to give her potentially more power! That must have really been heartbreaking for her.It’s about 50 seconds in, here.Her frustration with Couric must have been really overwhelming that she denied herself the opportunity to share these juicy insights into Supreme Court jurisprudence.

  3. Annoyed? Annoyed that she is asked a question? Goodness what is going to happen when tougher questions are asked? I swear I wish we could submit our top 10 questions to candidates and that they had to answer them. How do we get to know someone in a short amount of time if we aren’t allowed to ask questions? Sorry… too many questions and I may have annoyed you.

  4. Thank you Sean Roche for the easier link.Okay, so the US Supreme Court is no longer supposed to review whether state laws conflict with the Bill of Rights?More generally: we wouldn’t be okay with “fake it til you make it” for brain surgery or driving tractor trailers, for example — the negative consequences would be pretty evident pretty soon. Here, since any leader, competent or not, starts with just words, it’s easier for people to put themselves in positions they cannot handle — all they have to do is talk their way past other people who are trusting and more ignorant than they are.

  5. The readiness is all. At the level of political office Palin aspires to, there are no mulligans. Didn’t Mike Dukakis make that clear with his lame second attempt to answer Bernard King’s question back in ’88?

  6. You hit it exactly right, Sean Roche, on Kelo. She obviously was told to say that and doesn’t understand the ruling. If she did, she would not have used those words in her answer because Kelo upheld a city’s power for economic redevelopment, something you would think a mayor would support. Even if she is against it, she would not have answered by saying as a mayor it was good for her, that makes no sense.

  7. Hehe. The GOP agreed with the Supreme Court ruling, as it puts the wants of business ahead of the rights of the individual. How dumb is she?

Comments are closed.