Here's more video from Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric — in which Couric asks her to name Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with and she lapses into confounded silence after naming only one, Roe v. Wade.
I realize that the larger thing we should be concerned about is McCain and what sorts of justices he'd nominate as president — because the next president could potentially name up to three, going by the current justices' ages and chances of retiring.
But it's worth noting (and being kinda horrified by) the fact that Palin — the person who could be, as the media likes to say, "a heartbeat away" from having the power to shape the direction the high court takes for the next 40 years — can't extemporaneously name more than one Supreme Court case she disagrees with.
COURIC: What other Supreme Court decisions [than Roe v. Wade] do you disagree with?
PALIN: Well, let's see. There's — of course — in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are — those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know — going through the history of America, there would be others but —
Video/transcript via Ben Smith of The Politico.
The entirely artificial brouhaha around Gwen Ifill’s book on “Politics and Race in the Age of Obama” is just the latest of the unfathomably complicated intersections of the two issues in this campaign.
We had such a good time live blogging last week's debate that we're back at it again tonight.
Come hear our thoughts in real time, and, even better, share your own. No one knows what's going to happen tonight, but I think it's safe to say that there will be plenty to talk about.
(Of course, you may be busy at one of our VP Debate watch parties, which is another pretty good way to spend the evening.)
A portion of Katie Couric’s interview with Sarah Palin that aired Tuesday focused, among other things, on equal pay. The transcript:
Couric: Where do you stand on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?
Palin: I’m absolutely for equal pay for equal work. The Ledbetter pay act - it was gonna turn into a boon for trial lawyers who, I believe, could have taken advantage of women who were many, many years ago who would allege some kind of discrimination. Thankfully, there are laws on the books, there have been since 1963, that no woman could be discriminated against in the workplace in terms of anything, but especially in terms of pay. So, thankfully we have the laws on the books and they better be enforced.
Couric: The Ledbetter act sort of lengthens the time a woman can sue her company if she's not getting equal pay for equal work. Why should a fear of lawsuits trump a woman's ability to do something about the fact that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. And that's today.
Palin: There should be no fear of a lawsuit prohibiting a woman from making sure that the laws that are on the books today are enforced. I know in a McCain-Palin administration we will not stand for any measure that would result in a woman being paid less than a man for equal work.
Couric: Why shouldn’t the Ledbetter act be in place? You think it would result in lawsuits brought by women years and years ago. Is that your main problem with it?
Palin: It would have turned into a boon for trial lawyers. Again, thankfully with the existing laws we have on the books, they better be enforced. We won't stand for anything but that. We won't stand for any discrimination in the workplace - that there isn't any discrimination in America.
At first blush, it looks like Palin is just rehashing McCain’s argument against Ledbetter: “I don’t believe that this would do anything to help women except maybe help trial lawyers and others in that profession.” She does manage to eke out the lawyer-bashing McCain line, while asserting that McCain-Palin “won’t stand” for discrimination, but after that she appears to get a little lost. She seems to think that the “fear of lawsuits” Couric refers to in the second question are people suing women to prevent them from enforcing “the laws on the books.”
But a closer look reveals an even more fundamental misunderstanding. She says that “thankfully, we have the laws on the books." Well, yes, but thanks to Samuel Alito, that law means a lot less than it used to.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear, the Supreme Court decision that led to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, involved a woman, Lilly Ledbetter, who worked at a Goodyear Tire plant for almost twenty years, for a salary much less than her male co-workers. The “laws on the books,” as read by Justice Alito and the rest of his voting bloc, said that Ledbetter’s discrimination claim needed to be filed within 180 days of the first discriminatory paycheck. The only problem: Ledbetter first found out about the unequal pay through an anonymous tip, sixteen years after that first paycheck.
Of course, it’s not surprising that Palin doesn’t know the substance of the Ledbetter case—apparently, when asked to name Supreme Court cases, the only one she could produce was Roe v. Wade.
November 4 might be five weeks off, but there are a few things you can do today to help make sure you and your families' voices will be heard this Election Day. We've rounded up our top 5 things voters should do right now in a helpful PDF document — download it here — as part of People For Foundation's Election Protection work.
Pass it on to your friends and family — and make sure they're registered to vote!
Against gay rights, in favor of banning books -- Sarah Palin's values aren't mainstream Americans' values. Here's a short video of People For the American Way activists (including hockey moms!) making it clear that Sarah Palin doesn't speak for them.
In an interview with Katie Couric, it appears as if Sarah Palin was unable to name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade.
The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.
After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.
There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.
I like to think that if prompted, she could tell us what Brown v. Board of Education accomplished, but I’ve learned not to take anything for granted.
Anyway, Sarah, allow us to tell you about one or two cases that your own running mate has had a hand in bringing about. Thanks to the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, you can use any of these cases to talk about how the Court affects ordinary Americans.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg! Thanks to your running mate, there are all sorts of terrible, terrible Supreme Court decisions that limit our rights and freedoms. Better get studyin’.
In honor of Gov. Sarah Palin and her book-banning bona fides — she reportedly "asked the library how she could go about banning books" while mayor of Wasilla, AK — participate in Banned Book Week this week!
The yearly event — organized by the American Library Association — is a great opportunity to read such salacious titles as:
(Yes, all four of those titles were seriously among the books most frequently challenged in 2007. For the full list, click here.)
Also, make sure to check out the ALA's tips on what you can do to fight censorship in your hometown library.
Another federal court decision was expected later in the day over the early voting window, which begins Tuesday and has become a partisan battle in a swing state where President Bush narrowly clinched re-election in 2004.
In a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court said Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner was correct in ruling that voters don't need to be registered for at least 30 days before receiving an absentee ballot.
Republicans, who claimed that Brunner was misinterpreting the law to benefit her party, had backed lawsuits filed against the measure.
The decision is a real victory for voting rights and another acknowledgement that government should encourage people to vote, not make it more difficult for them to do so. And, of course, it will likely help increase turnout in Ohio, one of the crucial states this November.
Google made a welcome splash recently by coming out against Proposition 8 in California (the anti-marriage amendment) but Google always likes to be hip and different, right?
Actually, they were catching up to some decidedly old-school companies. Firedoglake points out that Levi Strauss and Co. also announced its opposition, and joined Pacific Gas and Electric Company as Co-Chair of the “No On Prop 8 Equality Business Council.” No offense, but it’s hard to get stodgier than a utility company, and a business that made blue jeans for gold miners isn’t exactly cutting edge. Yet they’re both taking unapologetically pro-marriage stances. Good for them.
No matter how hard the Right tries to pretend otherwise, marriage equality is mainstream, and marriage discrimination is rapidly becoming a fringe right-wing position. And that’s very good news indeed.
It probably hasn't escaped your notice that this blog doesn't have a proper name yet: have any clever suggestions? Send them our way at email@example.com.
If we choose your moniker idea, you will win both our undying devotion and your name in lights ("lights," in this context, meaning a celebration of your brilliance on the blog you will have freshly named!). Thanks!
What a roller coaster of a week! I spent a couple of days in New York this week meeting with board members, supporters and potential donors. The turmoil in the financial markets and the uncertainty about what kind of plan will come out of Washington contributed to some tension in the air. But I found that people were also focused on the bigger picture, what is at stake in this year's elections and on the importance of the work we're doing.
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain was on a rollercoaster of his own: pretending to suspend his campaign to rush to Washington, then sitting quietly through a White House meeting; getting caught red-handed lying to David Letterman; calling for tonight's presidential debate and next week's vice presidential debate to be postponed, then backing down today when it became clear that the American public wasn't buying it.
I'm proud that you came through for us this week. In just a few hours, more than 30,000 people signed our petition urging the presidential debate commission not to get pulled into McCain's political charade. We have more reason, not less, to take stock of our would-be leaders at a time of crisis. Earlier today People For joined forces with other organizations mobilizing to keep the debates on schedule and together we presented more than 170,000 petition signers to the commission office in Washington, DC.
Your activism is energizing to all of us at People For. One of the most heartening things that came across my desk this week was a note from Vicki Ryder, a People For member in Rochester, New York. Hundreds of you (thank you!) have posted "Sarah Palin Doesn't Speak for Me" photographs to our website. Vicki took it a step further, organizing a gathering of 300 women in a downtown square. "The organizing was easy," Vicki told us, "since so many of us who cherish true democracy are horrified by the thought of what a McCain-Palin administration would do to further erode our fast-disappearing rights. All I did was send out an invitation to some women I know, and the word spread quickly."
Vicki got some great media coverage of the event, making sure that a lot of people heard her message about McCain's selection of Sarah Palin:
"We don't like the idea that she doesn't support the Constitution. We think that the vice president of the United States, who's a heartbeat away from the presidency, should support the Constitution. She believes in banning books; she believes in imposing religion in the public schools, there are a lot of things we find totally objectionable."
Thanks and congratulations to Vicki for going the extra mile — and giving hundreds of her friends and neighbors a way to get involved. And thanks to all of you who wrote me after last week's note to tell me how you're getting engaged in this year's important elections.
One thing everyone can do is host a house party for next Thursday's vice presidential debate — and raise a little money to support our "Sarah Palin Doesn't Speak For Me" campaign. Gather with friends, old and new. And before we all start hollering at the TV set, join me on a nationwide conference call to get an inside look at what People For the American Way is doing between now and November 4. We have a nerve-wracking few weeks ahead of us, so let's join together for Debate Watch Parties next Thursday, and let's have fun while we're working to change the world.
Thanks to your (very expeditious) support of our Save the Debates petition, People For the American Way joined with allies to drop off more than 170,000 signatures calling for the debate schedule to remain intact.
And guess what? It worked!
Americans everywhere saw through John McCain’s flimsy excuse for skipping the debates, and today he announced that he will participate tonight in
And we’ll be participating too!! Yes, we’ll be liveblogging the whole thing right here – and you’ll be able to participate. So stop by tonight – before, during, and after the debate – to join in the conversation. See you then!
(Thanks to DemandTheDebate2008.com, MoveOn, Campaign For America’s Future, and CREDO for joining us in this effort!)
Kathryn Jean Lopez has a rather staggering column up over at NRO in which she basically announces that she is going to cover her eyes, stick her fingers in her ears, and stop watching any interview with Sarah Palin because she can’t stand to see her continue to humiliate herself any more and laments that Palin’s obvious inadequacies are ruining her fantasies:
I watch these interviews and I cringe a little. That Russia answer with Couric. Oy. It was a loaded question to be sure. But I thought a certain governor of Alaska had told us this was a time for no blinking. For (Uncle) Sam’s sake. You’re Sarah Palin. You’re governor of Alaska. You’re the mom of five. You’re married to a tough guy. You can handle America’s Former Sweetheart. And yet, you didn’t. She may have come off catty, but you came off hesitant and unprepared. What happened to the pitbull? I see the lipstick.
My guess — based on nothing but hope for a change — is that Sarah Palin just needs some freedom … If Sarah Palin is John McCain’s secret weapon, let her go, whoever is holding her back … But if the Palin we know and love and have projected our hopes for sanity in American politics is the real Sarah Palin — then come out from the shadows, woman.
Lopez pleads with the McCain campaign to just let Sarah be Sarah because “if it turns out that the ‘authentic’ Palin of rallies and the Republican convention is just good speech delivery in a woman with some good spirit, I want to know that sooner rather than later. “
Sadly, Palin has revealed herself to be exactly that, but Lopez simply refuses to admit it.
Maybe you just have to clap harder K-Lo.