The whole Palin/Supreme Court case thing
Alright, look.
This is not a political post qua political post in that I am about as disenfranchised in this current election as a political science major can ever be. This isn't about Obama or McCain or, more accurately, Sarah Palin, so I'm not trying to provoke, nor do I really want to hear, any outcry of how evil [insert candidate here] is and how I'd damn well better vote for [insert opposing candidate here], etc.
I've taken part in a lot of eye-rolling for the last year and a half -- at the actions of every candidate and potential candidate -- but none of the incidents have really made me want to say something.
This one does.
So I saw the meme floating around about naming Supreme Court cases (and this isn't a direct response to any one person who posted it, because several on my friends list did, and I appreciate the posts of it because that's how I found out about this whole thing). I thought it was kind of neat, but I also purposely didn't participate in it, naming my favorite handy court decision du jour (that'd be Sony Corp of America vs. Universal City Studios, of course), because I felt the meme had an obvious political slant to it that I didn't want to take part in among polite company. But it did pique my curiosity -- was Sarah Palin really unable to name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade? Really? In what context did this question come up? Was it Trivia Night with Katie Couric?
So I dug around and found some condescending, feign'd dissapointment-dripping CNN commentary that included a video clip of the interview and...
No. That's not what happened, there.
Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin if there were any other Supreme Court decisions with which she disagreed.
Now, think about that a little more.
I can sit here and name Supreme Court cases out the wazoo. Marbury v. Madison, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, Bowers v. Hardwick, Lawrence v. Texas, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board, Griswold v. Connecticut, Bush v. Gore, Katz v. U.S., Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, D.C. v. Heller, etc. I'm also an attorney so, you know, spouting off the name of key Supreme Court cases is like a French professor counting un, deux, trois. I'm nothing special for knowing those cases and plenty more.
And plenty of other educated Americans can spout off these or more nuanced and niched cases that pique their individual interests due to local interest, topical interest, etc.
But that's not what was asked of Palin. She was asked to name Supreme Court decisions with which she disagreed.
Spouting off Brown v. Board doesn't really work very well in that context, does it? Can you imagine the backlash of that? I mean, sure, you could cite Plessy, but that was overturned by Brown, so it's kind of a moot point. "I disagree with this Supreme Court decision that was passed in a different cultural context and that the court overturned years ago." How many of those key cases I listed up there wouldn't cause a complete fallout if she'd listed them off, citing them as cases with which she disagreed. Even Lawrence v. Texas, with which I'm sure she does disagree on the basis of anti-federalism, though she stated that she does believe in the Constitutional right of privacy, would raise cries that she is an insensitive, hatemongering bitch who thinks homosexuals should be criminalized.
Probably easier to just generally say "Yeah, uh, any of those anti-federalist cases."
No, I don't actually think this was some strategic plan to hide her beliefs or to protect herself from the potential fallout of having an opinion, which would be much worse, in our public, than just not knowing. I honestly believe that, no, she probably couldn't name another case off the top of her head that caused such a visceral disagreement as Roe v. Wade, but that is not the same thing as saying that she couldn't name a single other Supreme Court case.
So don't get me wrong; I'm not rallying in her defense and shouting from the hills in her honor -- I disagree with her and McCain on a whole lot of issues, just as I disagree with Obama/Biden on a whole lot of issues. I would hold this opinion regardless of the name associated with the "lack of knowledge" depicted.
But if we want to show off how much smarter we, the American people, the CNN commentators, and the Livejournal contingent, are than Sarah Palin, then the true test would be to name a Supreme Court decision with which you disagree, then explain, in a three-part essay, why, precisely, you disagree with that decision.
And that's without the two days you've already had to think about Supreme Court decisions. And with accepting the fallout received from criticizing other, less-publicly contested and politically-charged "easy target" opinions of the high court. And certainly without the benefit of Google and Wikipedia.
Now. Go for it. Now let's see how smart we all are.
This is not a political post qua political post in that I am about as disenfranchised in this current election as a political science major can ever be. This isn't about Obama or McCain or, more accurately, Sarah Palin, so I'm not trying to provoke, nor do I really want to hear, any outcry of how evil [insert candidate here] is and how I'd damn well better vote for [insert opposing candidate here], etc.
I've taken part in a lot of eye-rolling for the last year and a half -- at the actions of every candidate and potential candidate -- but none of the incidents have really made me want to say something.
This one does.
So I saw the meme floating around about naming Supreme Court cases (and this isn't a direct response to any one person who posted it, because several on my friends list did, and I appreciate the posts of it because that's how I found out about this whole thing). I thought it was kind of neat, but I also purposely didn't participate in it, naming my favorite handy court decision du jour (that'd be Sony Corp of America vs. Universal City Studios, of course), because I felt the meme had an obvious political slant to it that I didn't want to take part in among polite company. But it did pique my curiosity -- was Sarah Palin really unable to name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade? Really? In what context did this question come up? Was it Trivia Night with Katie Couric?
So I dug around and found some condescending, feign'd dissapointment-dripping CNN commentary that included a video clip of the interview and...
No. That's not what happened, there.
Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin if there were any other Supreme Court decisions with which she disagreed.
Now, think about that a little more.
I can sit here and name Supreme Court cases out the wazoo. Marbury v. Madison, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, Bowers v. Hardwick, Lawrence v. Texas, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board, Griswold v. Connecticut, Bush v. Gore, Katz v. U.S., Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, D.C. v. Heller, etc. I'm also an attorney so, you know, spouting off the name of key Supreme Court cases is like a French professor counting un, deux, trois. I'm nothing special for knowing those cases and plenty more.
And plenty of other educated Americans can spout off these or more nuanced and niched cases that pique their individual interests due to local interest, topical interest, etc.
But that's not what was asked of Palin. She was asked to name Supreme Court decisions with which she disagreed.
Spouting off Brown v. Board doesn't really work very well in that context, does it? Can you imagine the backlash of that? I mean, sure, you could cite Plessy, but that was overturned by Brown, so it's kind of a moot point. "I disagree with this Supreme Court decision that was passed in a different cultural context and that the court overturned years ago." How many of those key cases I listed up there wouldn't cause a complete fallout if she'd listed them off, citing them as cases with which she disagreed. Even Lawrence v. Texas, with which I'm sure she does disagree on the basis of anti-federalism, though she stated that she does believe in the Constitutional right of privacy, would raise cries that she is an insensitive, hatemongering bitch who thinks homosexuals should be criminalized.
Probably easier to just generally say "Yeah, uh, any of those anti-federalist cases."
No, I don't actually think this was some strategic plan to hide her beliefs or to protect herself from the potential fallout of having an opinion, which would be much worse, in our public, than just not knowing. I honestly believe that, no, she probably couldn't name another case off the top of her head that caused such a visceral disagreement as Roe v. Wade, but that is not the same thing as saying that she couldn't name a single other Supreme Court case.
So don't get me wrong; I'm not rallying in her defense and shouting from the hills in her honor -- I disagree with her and McCain on a whole lot of issues, just as I disagree with Obama/Biden on a whole lot of issues. I would hold this opinion regardless of the name associated with the "lack of knowledge" depicted.
But if we want to show off how much smarter we, the American people, the CNN commentators, and the Livejournal contingent, are than Sarah Palin, then the true test would be to name a Supreme Court decision with which you disagree, then explain, in a three-part essay, why, precisely, you disagree with that decision.
And that's without the two days you've already had to think about Supreme Court decisions. And with accepting the fallout received from criticizing other, less-publicly contested and politically-charged "easy target" opinions of the high court. And certainly without the benefit of Google and Wikipedia.
Now. Go for it. Now let's see how smart we all are.