GOPer Runyan Lists Dred Scott As Recent SCOTUS Decision He Disagrees With

[one...two...tree 2,762]

NJ-03 House candidate Jon Runyan ®

Eric Kleefeld

Jon Runyan, a former pro football player and now the Republican nominee against freshman Rep. John Adler (D-NJ), has added his voice to the recent constitutional jurisprudence of GOP candidates -- listing the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford Supreme Court decision as a recent case that he disagreed with.

As the Asbury Park Press reports, from a debate last night:

"Jon, it's a different branch of government, but can you give me an example from the last 10 or 15 years of a Supreme Court decision in which you strongly disagree?" Adler asked.

"That I strongly disagree with?" Runyan asked, pausing for a moment to consider the question. "Dred Scott."

There was some laughter in the audience.

Adler then asked the question again, pointing out that he asked for decisions in the previous 10-15 years. Runyan was reportedly unable to give an answer.

link

[^_^ 5,021]

Dred Scott is probably the only SCOTUS ruling he's ever heard of. At least it proves he sorta kinda paid attention in school. Surprising for a jock.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Dred Scott is probably the only SCOTUS ruling he's ever heard of. At least it proves he sorta kinda paid attention in school. Surprising for a jock.

Doubt it. The article says it's a "dog whistle" for other conservatives regarding opposition to Roe v Wade. Someone poured this in jocko's ear, and I don't think it was his 5th period American History teacher.

[^_^ 5,021]

But what does Dredd Scott have to do with Roe v Wade?

[The_Dude 1,142]

But what does Dredd Scott have to do with Roe v Wade?

Nothing. But it does reek of the former republican plan to associate themselves with Lincoln, recall the whole "we are the party of lincoln and reagan" line used during the 08 election.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Rob & Mel

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Useful reading on the so-called parallels between Dred Scott and Roe: http://www.slate.com/id/2108083/

[^_^ 5,021]

Useful reading on the so-called parallels between Dred Scott and Roe: http://www.slate.com/id/2108083/

In a previous case, the Dred Scott decision, (1857) fully-grown men and women (because their skin was black?) were declared "non-persons" by the Court, by denying them the status of free men. In Roe v. Wade the offspring of human parentage who are waiting to be born, simply because they are not yet born, are called non-persons ("not persons in the full sense") by the Court. In the former instance the legal consequence was slavery. In this present case, the legal consequence is death.

Interesting. I suppose the idea here is about the danger in letting a judge decide who is and who isn't.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Useful reading on the so-called parallels between Dred Scott and Roe: http://www.slate.com/id/2108083/

Aha! That dimwitted former football jock is actually a clever brute.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Useful reading on the so-called parallels between Dred Scott and Roe: http://www.slate.com/id/2108083/

Ahhh, the whole "All men are created equal" argument in the abortion issue.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Ahhh, the whole "All men are created equal" argument in the abortion issue.

Yup. Men and fetuses.

Please don't pull me into an abortion debate this morning, mind you. I'm feeling poorly.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Yup. Men and fetuses.

Please don't pull me into an abortion debate this morning, mind you. I'm feeling poorly.

I think a well timed diatribe by Joyce's sparkly fetus right now would be appropriate.