Put Palin on the Supreme Court

Guess what: You have to be a licensed attorney before you can be a judge, even a circuit judge in a dumb f town like Wasilla. Sarah isn't even qualified to hear traffic ticket controversies.

My parents always told me LYING IS STILL LYING no matter how many times you tell it !!!
Palin hint...hint !!!

she's not qualified for dog catcher.. let her go back to moose hunting and help her daughter raise her grand child

she's not qualified for dog catcher.. let her go back to moose hunting and help her daughter raise her grand child

This is exactly why I cancelled my Newsweek subscription !!

Newsweek fire the author

Did you run out of recipes to share with us?

Oy, oy, oy

Good choice. You can put lipstick on the Constitution as readily as you can on a pitbull. But then you wouldn't be able to read the Constitution.

I don't think satire like this works when the party line is so close to the attempted satirical technique, it just makes you more depressed.

I don't think satire like this works when the party line is already so close to how you are attempting to satirize it.

Maybe my computer is not working properly so I can't find page 2 of this article - the part with the punchline?

I hope you???re joking Dahlia. If not, you have no business writing for Newsweek whatsoever. I must agree that there is a deep-seeded problem with the combination of Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas on the bench. They???re all Republicans! Roberts and Alito worked directly for the Bush administration, and Thomas, when he actually does take a stance (which is rare) has sided with the Bush administration at least 90% of the time.
Now I am not suggesting that we need to pack the Supreme Court with judges that will favor the democratic party. The Supreme Court should be a place of high-minded political philosophy, not for partisan politics. Judges should not be chosen because they are going to serve one political party and/or have an agenda to overturn the decision of Roe v. Wade. Nevertheless, the current administration has been gaming the bench precisely for these reasons, and you appear to be playing right along.
???Unyielding moral certainty??? matters far less in the Supreme Court than accurate knowledge of our Constitution and the dialogue among it???s framers and interpreters. The Nazis had unyielding moral certainty. Beyond that, you honestly believe ???relatability and gender??? should be the main qualifications for choosing the next Justice of the Supreme Court? Your logic for giving Palin this position is that she is a creationist who ???dabbles??? in book banning, fires dissenters, ("likes shooting wolves from helicopters?") ???has little background in national security, health care, immigration, or foreign policy,??? and ???wants to do away with abortion and strongly opposes gay marriage???? I seriously hope you???re joking.

I hope you???re joking Dahlia. If not, you have no business writing for Newsweek. I must agree first off that there is a deep-seeded problem with the combination of Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas on the bench. They???re all Republicans! Roberts and Alito worked directly for the Bush administration, and Thomas, when he actually does take a stance (which is rare) has sided with the Bush administration at least 90% of the time.
I am not suggesting that there need to be more judges that favor the policies of the democratic party.
The Supreme Court should be a place of high-minded political philosophy, not partisan politics. Judges should not be chosen because they are going to serve one political party and/or have an agenda to overturn the decision of Roe v. Wade. Nevertheless, the current administration has been gaming the bench precisely for these reasons.
???Unyielding moral certainty??? matters far less in the Supreme Court than accurate knowledge of the Constitution and the dialogue among it???s framers and interpreters. The Nazis had unyielding moral certainty. Beyond that, you honestly believe ???relatability and gender??? should be the main qualifications for choosing the next Justice of the Supreme Court? Your logic for giving Palin this position is that she is a creationist who ???dabbles??? in book banning, fires dissenters, ???has little background in national security, health care, immigration, or foreign policy,??? and ???wants to do away with abortion and strongly opposes gay marriage????
I seriously hope you???re joking.

How I do hope this article was written tongue-in-cheek. But, I suspect not. Sarah Palin has no education in juris prudence and thus, no experience with the law, except to apply local laws for her benefit.
The Supreme Court is an old boys network because, until now, only old boys had the credentials for consideration of nomination. And Sarah Palin does not have any credentials to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, let alone serve as magistrate in rural Alaska.
Sarah Palin is a very scary propostion for either politial party. She has a documented history of manipulating party hacks to promote her, then turning on them; she has a documented history of cronyism and appointing unqualified friends to positions of responsiblity; her partisanship and ego are unyielding and self-righteous.
Sarah Palin could set US civil rights back 300 years.
When will conservatives recognize even they have more freedoms under liberalism?

You embody what is wrong with the media. Just because you say something is so, doesn't make it true. A real journalist can stick to the facts and still develop a storyline that has insight and an editorial opinion. You just lie.....Newsweek...this is garbage!