Just a few Supreme Court decisions that MIGHT interest Sarah Ignoramus Palin

[TahitiNut]

• Marbury v. Madison ... without which, ALL subsequent 'activist' decisions would not have been made.
• Dred Scott v. Sandford ... what happens when your 'property' runs away to a jurisdiction where title to that 'property' isn't legal
• Plessy v. Ferguson ... it's OK to keep the human commodities separted in 'equal' bins in the public warehouses
• Brown v. Board of Education ... just a little "federal interference" with local schools, Sarah
• Miranda v. Arizona ... does 'Arizona' sound familiar? didn't you say something dismissive about "reading them (terrorists) their rights," Sarah?
• Bush v. Gore ... hello? Hello? Don't you states rights folks get upset when those activist judges interfere with elections?
• Exxon v. Baker ... Hello? Sarah? You're on record against this one, sweetie! Don't you remember the 3x5 cards you've read in the past???

It's truly amazing that she couldn't answer ... and come up with at least ONE or TWO of these!

Sarah ... you're not just an embarrassment to women (who buy into that "identity politics" dreck), you're an embarrassment to the people of Alaska AND even the human race!

[StopTheNeoCons]

1. Great post, very "connecting", the decisions to her words and life...THANKS

[NNN0LHI]

2. Couldn't have said it better

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Bravo! Kick and rec closer to the greatest page! n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

4. May personal favorites ...

... Murray v. Curlett the one brought to trial by Madelyn Murray (O'Hair) that took prayer out of schools!

Lawrence v Texas the one that took the government out of people's bedrooms!

Supreme Court thread!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. A few more:

Plessy v. Ferguson (upholding the "separate but equal" principle of racial segregation); District of Columbia v. Heller (individual right to gun ownership); Ex Parte Milligan (no military tribunals if civilian courts available); Loving v. Virginia (states can't ban interracial marriage); Griswold v. Connecticut (states can't prohibit contraceptives); Gideon v. Wainright (right to appointed counsel); Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (president didn't have the power to nationalize steel industry) -- and on and on. Important cases, stuff anybody who wants to hold high federal office damn well ought to know.

[TahitiNut]

9. (burp)

(darn tubes)

[TahitiNut]

10. Yeah... I should've included Loving v. Virginia ...

... since she wouldn't have to keep herself from calling Obama a 'bastard' if it wasn't for that one. (I'm sure she finds 'Sambo' far less satisfying.)

:puke: :puke:

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. "Gideion's Trumpet" is a good book about

Gideon v. Wainright.
Maybe I can send Sarah my copy.

UH...what' her reading level again?

[Toucano]

15. If it's not a coloring book, don't bother. n/t

[malaise]

6. The most frightening thing about her ignorance on

Supreme Court cases is that this moron and her Fundie friends want to appoint judges. They don't know shit but they want power.

[TahitiNut]

17. Her hypocritical posture on 'privacy' betrays a mind that's deeply flawed, too.

It actually came up recently and I've been aghast at how she claims 'privacy' for her daughter and her family without comprehending that it's the foundation upon which Roe v. Wade was decided. So, even the sole decision she's able to reference is one that she's basically ignorant about.

She's an appalling ignoramus ... worse than Dan Quayle, even. (OTOH, perhaps she can spell 'potato.')

[Gregorian]

7. The People vs. Larry Flynt

One would think she'd have known about that one. With a big bad porno guy and a little old kind minister.

[garlicmilkshake]

8. Lawrence vs. Texas? Maybe she was out shooting wolves when they did that one

:eyes:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

[TahitiNut]

11. Well, ya gotta wonder what she and the moose were doing that made her shoot it, huh?

:evilgrin:

:hide: (I don't believe I said that.) :blush:

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

13. Good stuff, but wouldn't you much rather hear these responses...

Lincoln v. Douglas -- yeah, that one right there is a good one. In the great history of our nation, and Lincoln was a Republican.

Witches v. Salem, MA -- oh, there's a nother one that is right on. Those witches were sure askin' for trouble and, as a great Christian nation, we are, the United State and people should be rid of witchcraft, like me.

Godzilla v. Mothra -- yes, now this one I remember. I used to learn about it during the civics class I took at School House Rock. You know, I learned about how a bill becomes a law and how nouns become adverbs.

[PeaceNikki]

14. Ledbetter v Firestone.

I'd like to know if she thinks it'd be fair if we paid her less than Joe Biden to be VP.

[Bozita]

16. Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886 - the birth of corporate personhood

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm

-snip-

Lincoln's suspicions were prescient. In the 1886 Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state tax assessor, not the county assessor, had the right to determine the taxable value of fenceposts along the railroad's right-of-way.

However, in writing up the case's headnote - a commentary that has no precedential status - the Court's reporter, a former railroad president named J.C. Bancroft Davis, opened the headnote with the sentence: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Oddly, the court had ruled no such thing. As a handwritten note from Chief Justice Waite to reporter Davis that now is held in the National Archives said: "we avoided meeting the Constitutional question in the decision." And nowhere in the decision itself does the Court say corporations are persons.

Nonetheless, corporate attorneys picked up the language of Davis's headnote and began to quote it like a mantra. Soon the Supreme Court itself, in a stunning display of either laziness (not reading the actual case) or deception (rewriting the Constitution without issuing an opinion or having open debate on the issue), was quoting Davis's headnote in subsequent cases. While Davis's Santa Clara headnote didn't have the force of law, once the Court quoted it as the basis for later decisions its new doctrine of corporate personhood became the law.

Prior to 1886, the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment defined human rights, and individuals - representing themselves and their own opinions - were free to say and do what they wanted. Corporations, being artificial creations of the states, didn't have rights, but instead had privileges. The state in which a corporation was incorporated determined those privileges and how they could be used. And the same, of course, was true for other forms of "legally enacted game playing" such as unions, churches, unincorporated businesses, partnerships, and even governments, all of which have only privileges.

But with the stroke of his pen, Court Reporter Davis moved corporations out of that "privileges" category - leaving behind all the others (unions, governments, and small unincorporated businesses still don't have "rights") - and moved them into the "rights" category with humans, citing the 14th Amendment which was passed at the end of the Civil War to grant the human right of equal protection under the law to newly-freed slaves.

more...

[fizzgig]

18. tinker v des moines is one of my faves

i also like ny times co v u.s.

[TahitiNut]

22. One of my personal favorites is West Virginia v. Barnette ... it's as old as I am.

:silly:

[endthewar]

19. She should have been briefed on Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld

After all, she criticized Obama's position on this case at one of her rallies. Obviously we now know that she was just reading the teleprompter and not comprehending it. She claimed that McCain would protect Americans from terrorists while Obama would read them their rights.

[TahitiNut]

20. I doubt she even knows what habeas corpus is ... even as "Governor."

She's such an ignoramus that I doubt she has any patience whatsoever with such a "furrin sounding" term.


She probably thinks "produce the body" has to do with field dressing a moose. :dunce:

[intheflow]

21. Brown v. Board of Education and Dred Scott

are high school level history. Hell, I dropped out of high school after 11th grade, but I knew of both of those cases. I bet they even teach that those in Alaskan high school history classes, too.

[TahitiNut]

23. Caribou Barbie was playing slap and tickle with Todd while that was being taught, I'll bet.

Her emotional and psychological development seems to have halted somewhere around 10th grade.

[4_TN_TITANS]

24. To be fair...

How many other average Americans could have come up with any on the spot, in front of Couric and the camera? Point: she's no more intelligent than the average American, not VP material.

[Thothmes]

25. Yasui v. United States,

Hirabayashi v. United States and Korematsu v. United States. All legitimized the internment of American citizens in concentration camps because they were of Japanese ancestry

[Kurovski]

26. K&R. (nt)