With all respect to Josh, this isn't true:

Not knowing any Supreme Court decision she opposes except for Roe v. Wade ain't great. Frankly, though, for the Christian right, that's really the only Supreme Court jurisprudence they want you to know.

Remember the town-hall debate in 2004, where George Bush unexpectedly answered a preferred jurisprudence question by criticizing the Dred Scott case.  At the time, it seemed passing strange for the President to give an answer that seemed like a fifth grader's social studies class presentation.  However, astute observers picked up on the dog-whistle signal Bush was sending to the religious right.  Dred Scott, it turned out, was code for Roe (something about arguing that abortion implies that the fetus is "property").  So, in fact, the wingers want us to know two court cases, but one of them is really just a stand-in for the other. 

I bring this up because I'm expecting Palin to bring up Dred Scott during tomorrow's debate.  When she does, she wants moderates to think it means she's against slavery (what a relief).  It really means she's against reproductive rights.