her beauty pageant answers are growing truly tiresome.

HOLY FUCK! shit fuck! god damn, and then again. There are other times where fuck god. When I'm vicey-prezzers I'll work to crap hell for the good of america.

When the hell is this lady gonna get mad and drop some cussin'. Judging by her intellegence you'd think every other thing out of her mouth would be an f-bomb.

-Profanity is a poor attempt by a weak mind to make a strong statement.

COURIC (to Palin): Do you think there’s an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

PALIN: I do. Yeah, I do.

COURIC: the cornerstone of Roe v Wade

PALIN: I do. And I believe that –individual states can handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that.

----

I love how Katie Couric tries to patiently explain why her answer to one question is completely in opposition to her answer to the other question, but no! Palin forges ahead with another syntactical fucking nightmare of an evasive answer.

wtf

I'm just as confused by both answers although for different reasons. Where are women being denied the right to sue a man that beat them? That's crazy? The feds are helpless because it's not interstate commerce?

Wow, is she ever dumb. But while I agree with Biden's sentiment--courts should provide maximum protection to beaten women--I disagree with his take. We shouldn't federalize crimes, taking them out of their ordinary jurisdictions, unless there is a compelling interest of the federal government.

The press is wise to Palin's training and how she conducts herself in debates, they also know how she "won" others-- which means Biden knows.

Do you get the feeling like everything out of her mouth is from a game of mad-libs or something? Only all the fill-in words are from a seventh graders vocabulary.

What's incredible is that she doesn't even know HER OWN SIDE'S talking points. I mean, is there a sentient right winger alive who doesn't know the basics of the "right to privacy" debate, and what it is always discussed in light of?

Dred Scott?

Palin did exactly the same thing as the last interview. Couric asked her a question and she used the example Couric gave her. She like a parot. Tomorrow night should be fun.

Fuckin' HELL!!!! She's a box of rocks, yo. A box of rocks.

Plessy vs. Ferguson, Marbury vs. Madison, McCullough vs. Maryland, Lawrence vs. Texas, Griswold vs. Connecticut...

Here's a great one!

Tinker vs. Des Moines

Or this might be one of the best ones: Brown vs. Board of Education

I can name more Court cases than Palin. Can I be VP now?

Regarding VAWA - look up United States vs. Morrison. It did remove a key provision.

One would think that the Governor of Alaska could have talked about the recent Exxon Valdez ruling. She's horrible.

Breathtakingly stupid.

On the other hand, Lawrence v. Texas seems to be perfectly fine with Hooker Heels, so who knew she was pro-sodomy?

@6--i don't know for sure, but i think the argument about federal hate crimes legislation isn't about federalizing the crime, but about giving local law enforcement the opportunity to call the feds to investigate and try the criminal. right? maybe the violence against women act has a similar implication?

The worst thing about this is it makes Katie Couric seem like H.L. Mencken.

yeah dred scott occurred to me too, just as a simple example. a bit old though. biden's answer is eloquent and demonstrates his experience, i'm not familiar with the decision he was referring to so i can't say if the content of what he said was spot on or not, but that's about as solid an answer as a politician can possibly give.

palin continues to astound me. how could anyone vote for her? it's shocking.

Oh, no mention of Lawrence v. Texas-- maybe she'll help get that flushed so Rossi can get his anti-gay mandate and won't have to worry about fudging the will of the people.

She did know the word "federalist," though; gotta give her points for that. Do you think her handlers are freaking out about Thursday?

@3 beat me to it. That is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. Jesus.

The only thing about this is that tomorrow night, who is going to be following up with her to make sure she actually answers the question. Say what you will about Katie Couric, but at least she tries to make her answer the question. I fear that the fact that she's just jabbered on for 2 minutes and not actually said anything may get lost tomorrow.

Having the contrast between the two makes it that much more damning.

LET'S DO THIS!!

Julie, jabbering on without actually saying anything coherent is damning in its own right.

I think I now understand what she was trying to say the other day about her being in "like, second grade" when Biden was beginning his career in the legislature.

Obviously, she meant that she's like a second grader compared to Biden.

http://members.tripod.com/buggerluggs/wavs/boing.wav

#17: the biggest argument for federal hate crimes is that local jurisdictions often ignore crimes against certain groups (lynchings, gay bashings, woman beatings, child abuse) because the ruling culture accepts these crimes. in a lot of cultures in this country a wife or girlfriend is still considered de facto property and can be assaulted at will without repercussions. it's absolutely a civil rights issue. joe biden is completely right.

She's a Christian who loves babies, even retarded ones. Why is it so hard for you libs to get that?

Go drink your chardoney and have gay sex with each other.

Good lord, she is impressively pathetic. Then again, a woman that would force other women to pay for their own rape investigations to try to keep them from getting access to emergency contraception isn't going to be swayed by a little thing like the privacy of their own bodies. Maybe privacy is only for men?

i really want to hear palin's opinion on morse v. frederick. i really just want to hear her say "bong hits 4 jesus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

Well, we all know these cheerleader/prom queens/beauty queen types. Whether it's homecoming or the VP, you know she blew somebody under the bleachers to win. She's pretty, she doesn't have to be smart.

Hooker Heels, Ha!

Sorry...dead link...try this:

http://www.ilovewavs.com/Effects/Cartoons/Boing2.wav

I think Biden should just cede all his debate time to Palin. He'd win unconditionally.

I hate chardonnay but I loves me my gay sex.

Learn to spell Ms. Wright. Oh, yeah it's French word and you don't even know English.

Sorry!!!

Sorry, tiddlywinks, but I was out working for a living when you wer in some fancypants collage majoring in fisting or whatever it is you people do and not just in the privacy of your bedrooms.

Sarah Palin is a Christian marter and when she wins you libs will sing a different song.

@36- you and Sarah are not just more "marter" you're more smartful...

I would think the last thing right-wingers want Sarah Palin to be is a Christian martyr, seeing as how that requires death and all.

@5 & 6,

The case is called Morrison v. U.S. The Supreme Court overturned a section of VAWA that allowed federal courts the jurisdiction to hear civil suits for damages by abuse victims against their abusers.

In spite of the hearings on the issue that Biden referred to, the Supreme Court found that family law was traditionally regulated by the states, and that Congress was going beyond its Commerce Clause powers in extending federal court jurisdiction to the area.

There is merit to the idea of allowing federal judges and juries to hear these cases. While state courts are of high quality in many places, an abuse victim in a rural area had the option to get a hearing in a federal court, before a typically more worldly, better educated judge and a jury drawn from the entire federal judicial district. By contrast, in state court, the judge and jury would be from her home county.

I would hope that the court would rule similarly, if, say, a conservative Congress amended DOMA to bar states from recognizing any same-sex marriages. Wouldn't hold my breath with the current court.

You know...I was going to go have heterosexual sex with my fiance, but I do like chardonnay...

Maybe I should call my maid of honor and ask if she wants to help me check and make sure I'm still straight.

Incidentally, I think the Terri Schiavo Act was unconstitutional under Morrison. Congress had no Commerce Clause or other power to grant the Middle District of Florida federal court special jurisdiction to re-review Florida's family law procedures.

The sad thing is, this was supposed to be a softball. The question was,
"What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?" Normal Americans might say "Dred Scott" or "Plessy v. Ferguson." Progressive Americans might say "Bowers v. Hardwick." Conservatives could cite "Miranda." But this was a gift to Palin to talk about "Baker v. Exxon"--how she stood up to the oil companies, how the Supreme Court vacated the $2.5 billion judgment, blah, blah, blah. This wasn't gotcha journalism--it was a softball--and she still fucked it up!

To the Pro-Lifers, "Dred Scott" is code for "States' Rights" in determining the Fed's jurisdictional role when it comes to personal property (from slaves to the physical body). Bush referenced in his debate with Kerry. It's a media dog whistle to let the Lifers know where you stand.

Interesting point, 43

She describes herself as a Federalist, then advocates for States' Rights in the same sentence?!

"In that sense, I'm a Marxist, in that I believe that Labor should not be allowed to organize."

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

(HEAD EXPLODES)

Speaking as a lawyer, I think watching that broke something in my brain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y7E235ujJ4 ... If you missed it, the mashup between the real Palin and Tina Fey as Palin. Scary, scary, scary.

For a small government conservative, I would think she could have cited Kelo v. New London as well. Or is she in favor of the government seizing private property from Joe Six-Pack to give to yuppy developers because they can increase the property value and therefore pay higher property taxes?

@42 and 48,

The Miller Decision in 1939 allowed the Federal Government to ban machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. Dumb though she is, you'd think at least that one would have stuck in her craw.

I find Biden totally charming. I'd rather have dinner with him than Obama. If I had dinner with Palin, I think she'd put me off my feed.

If you're a pro-lifer, the right to privacy and the right to life don't conflict. We also have a right to keep and bear arms, but that ends when we start using them to commit murder (which pro-lifers believe abortion is). In the same way, the right to privacy doesn't trump the right of another person to their life. Remember, the Griswold vs. Connecticut case where the right to privacy was established dealt with contraception, not abortion. Just a short course in the logic here.

In spite of the hearings on the issue that Biden referred to, the Supreme Court found that family law was traditionally regulated by the states

What? Since when is violence a matter for family courts? Their argument boils down to why VAWA exists in the first place: too many jurisdictions consider domestic violence to be a private family matter. Christ.

Tell me this, how does Couric keep a straight face during these interviews. Does she take Palin seriously any more?

@45 - Um, after you clean up the mess from your head exploding, you might want to look up the word "federalism" in the dictionary. The lesson here? When making fun of Sarah Palin, it's probably best NOT to reveal that you're even more ignorant than she is.

I want whirled peas.

@54 - She said, "I'm a Federalist..."

Here's one definition: "One who believes in and promotes state individualism as opposed to nationalistic controls." Under this definition, you're right (ouch).

Here's another, and this is what I was thinking of when I heard the interview:

"A member of a former political party (The Federalist Party) in the United States that favored a strong centralized federal government"

Maybe this makes me dumber than someone who named their kids "Trig" and "Track," but I've never heard the term "Federalist" used to describe a States' Rights point of view (which Palin holds, along with her secessionist husband). Wasn't Lincoln's army called the Federal Army, fighting a confederacy of independent states?

@56: Federalism = states rights in this context. It was a new nation's natural reaction to an oppressive monarchy, an aversion to overly powerful centralized government.

Now, I'm all for Obama, but, to be fair, Biden appeared to discuss Roe as if the trimester system is the law. It is not, and the only temporal distinction that matters now is pre- vs. post-viability. Biden should know that.

Hopefully he was just answering the question as it was asked: Why do you think Roe was a good decision? Still, it would have been nice to hear him acknowledge that the portion of Roe he discussed is not the law.

Amen @14. Even assuming that she's done no homework or preparation on previous Supreme Court decisions, the Exxon Valdez ruling came down on her watch, with the state's involvement, and with a tremendous --and negative-- impact on her constituents. Shouldn't we be able to rely on her to at least remember that!?

Man, she must be getting like one minute of sleep a night at this point.

Right? I wonder how many hours of debate prep she's doing today.