OT - Jon Runyan Getting the Bad Sort of Attention

Submitted by Fuzzy Dunlop on
As many of you may know, Jon Runyan is running for Congress in NJ. Unfortunately, he didn't do himself proud during a recent debate, video of which is making the rounds, in which he said that the Dred Scott decision was one of the Supreme Court decisions from the last 10 or 15 years that he disagreed with. Oh well. He sure could pancake defenders, though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkktfiBxJgQ&feature=player_embedded

mGrowOld

October 20th, 2010 at 5:09 PM ^

I guess on the bright side there has definitely been dumber things said during debates.  Heck....that comment doesnt even rank #1 if the category is "dumb things said by ex-Michigan football players during debates for political office." 

I think President Ford's got that one locked down for his claim that Eastern Europe WASN'T under Soviet control in 1976.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8rg9c4pUrg

MGoShoe

October 20th, 2010 at 5:09 PM ^

Mod Edit: Suggestion of political nature, while more or less harmless, redacted. Comment space not deleted because reply comment below should be emphasized.

KMJ

October 20th, 2010 at 5:54 PM ^

I realize that historical court cases are "fair questions" for a debate, and not to make excuses for Runyan . . . but there's a ton of information that people just forget or can't  remember when put on the spot.  I wish more people would just say, "I can't recall that case right now." or "I would have to brush up on my history before I answer that question."

FauxMo

October 20th, 2010 at 9:24 PM ^

But as a prospective LAWMAKER shouldn't we assume he has at least a general sense for how the judiciary has interpreted said law over the past 219 years? Dred Scot is one of those cases that EVERYONE who takes an introductory poli.sci. class has beaten into their heads.Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scot, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, etc...   

Steve in PA

October 20th, 2010 at 7:41 PM ^

Not mentioned, and avoided posting this like the plague, is that his opponent has been allegedly involved with a 3-rd party candidacy to siphon votes from the big guy.  It's been talked about in the Philly papers if you are interested...

...and if you aren't, ignore this post cause I'm not interested in dragging politics into this fine board.