As noted, liberals don’t ‘hate’ Palin, they merely take issue with her ignorance, such as displayed with regard to the Constitutional right to privacy, the rule of law, and the incorporation of the Bill or Rights to the states:
"Well, let's see. There's ― of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there'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 ―"
“…best held on a state level…’ states don’t decide what rights their citizens are entitled to and which they are not. Nor may a majority of a state’s voters preempt the rights of their fellow citizens. Not only is Palin ignorant of
Supreme Court cases she disagrees with besides
Roe, she’s ignorant of the basic tenets of the Founding Document, that our rights are inalienable, that no government may violate one’s rights – Federal, state, or local.
The issue isnÂ’t so much PalinÂ’s ignorance of Constitutional case law per se, but that sheÂ’s unaware of her ignorance.
Consequently liberals have good cause to oppose Palin, she advocates a policy - the fallacy of 'states' rights' which conflicts with established, settled Constitutional case law, jeopardizing the rights of every American.