"And Katie's still waitin' for a Supreme Court decision Bible Spice disagrees with. (Brown vs. the Board of Education, perhaps?)"

I did not and do not get the feeling that Gov. Palin was not able to answer K. Couric's question -- but rather as you insinuate, Palin could not answer the question. I would add to the Brown v Board of Ed, that there also, may be constitutional amendments that the Gov. would disagree with as well, those would be the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and that she might agree with the following Supreme Court and/or Congressional Acts: Plessey V Ferguson (1896), The Fugitive Slave Act, The Dred Scott Decision (1857) and finally The Supreme Court's decision to declare the 1875 Civil Rights Act unconstitutional (for instance in today's debate, one could wonder why do we need a civil rights act?, especially if we have a county that does not need or find necessary affirmative action laws, programs and policieis.)

We know that Gov. Palin opposes Roe v Wade, but it would be interesting to hear her and others really rebegin the old state's rights debate again, rather than just mentioning it. To the novice, the idea of state's rights sounds reasonable. The question is when you look at the history of the argument, why the argument was formulated in the first place, it's a different story and for some it may not be so reasonable from that angle.

I live through the era of the modern civil rights debate and listend to the state's rights arguments against change in the 1950's and 1960's. It is was interesting time and something young people and new Americans need to study. So much of so-called modern day conservatism is based upon the time period right before and after Brown v Board of Education. Its all about race, wrapped up in some other fear and hysteria. Some people will never get over the intrusive big, federal government taking away their property (i.e. freeing slaves- this is an economic issue and wealth accumulation interference argument, etc.) -- I think today's tax debate and the "spead the wealth" talk has some relationship to the loss of wealth experienced by the forced freeing of black slaves. No not directly (and some of you will feel this is a stretch), but I think if one would trace the history of presidential elections post Brown V Board of Education (which nailed the coffin of segregation -- symbolically of course) you will find within it all the root to the argument, fear mongering and racial rage we see in the election today, in particular why Obama is to be feared. Otherwise, where is it coming from and why would it be relevant and even something a candidate would think could appeal to any American?