Male Dumbasses

NigelTufnel said:
Not at all. But even well-informed laypersons completely lacking in any legal education whatsoever can at least name a supreme court case or two with which they disagree with the outcome even if they do not necessarily understand the legal niceties involved. I mean, on this very board the Kelo decision was overwhelmingly rejected and we had robust discussions of the Citizens United decision, the Ledbetter decision, the Exxon Valdez decision. It doesn't require a legal education to agree or disagree with the outcomes in those cases.
Click to expand...

ok....then do you believe he is an idiot because he lacks legal knowledge of what the supreme court has decided?

i don't know anything about this guy and it seems like a nervous reaction...his response afterwards was that he would answer with citizens...which of course you and he are in agreement....kind of odd don't you think :D
 
Yurt said:
ok....then do you believe he is an idiot because he lacks legal knowledge of what the supreme court has decided?

i don't know anything about this guy and it seems like a nervous reaction...his response afterwards was that he would answer with citizens...which of course you and he are in agreement....kind of odd don't you think :D
Click to expand...


I think he's an idiot because he couldn't answer the question. He's running for Congress for Christ's sake and should be prepared for that question.

All I know about Runyan is that he was a hell of an offensive lineman for the Eagles, that he's running for Congress as a Republican and that he couldn't name a SCOTUS decision in the past 15 years that he disagreed with.
 
OTE=NigelTufnel;719562]I think he's an idiot because he couldn't answer the question. He's running for Congress for Christ's sake and should be prepared for that question.
Click to expand...

fair enough...but he is running for congress, not defending his appointment to the scotus....

All I know about Runyan is that he was a hell of an offensive lineman for the Eagles, that he's running for Congress as a Republican and that he couldn't name a SCOTUS decision in the past 15 years that he disagreed with.
Click to expand...

well...afterwards he named the decision that you most likely find the most repulsive as well :D

if not most...in your top 3....am i right :clink:
 
NigelTufnel said:
Not at all. But even well-informed laypersons completely lacking in any legal education whatsoever can at least name a supreme court case or two with which they disagree with the outcome even if they do not necessarily understand the legal niceties involved. I mean, on this very board the Kelo decision was overwhelmingly rejected and we had robust discussions of the Citizens United decision, the Ledbetter decision, the Exxon Valdez decision. It doesn't require a legal education to agree or disagree with the outcomes in those cases.
Click to expand...

really surprised nobody brought up gonzalez v. raich. oh well.
 
As for SCOTUS decisions in the past 15 years I strongly disagreed with... There was this one about using Eminent Domain to take property for the sole reason of collecting more taxes....
 
Darla said:
I bet that if Christine O'Donnell had said this there would already be several threads on this board about it.

Why is that?

Here you have a an ex-football player who apparently, is a complete and utter moron. No threads. Keith Olbermann didn't have a skit about him last night.

Do you know how many dumb men are already in Congress? How many male brain donor survivors are running for Congress this year?

Christine O'Donnell. That's all I hear about. Yeah, she's stupid. And if she's ever looking for a boyfriend? She won't have to look far if she's in DC.

"In their debate last night, freshman Rep. John Adler (D-NJ) asked former Philadelphia Eagle Jon Runyan (R) for "an example from the last 10 or 15 years of a Supreme Court decision in which you strongly disagree?"

Runyan's response: Dred Scott."

Video: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...t-scotus-decision-he-disagreed-with-video.php
Click to expand...

Male dumbasses.....isn't that redundant?
 
NigelTufnel said:
Here's a decent article on it from 2004 when Bush in one of the debates brought up Dred Scott in response to a question about the types of judges he would appoint to the Supreme Court:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108083/

Long story short, pro-lifers view Roe v. Wade as akin to Dred Scott in that in Roe v. Wade the court decided that the unborn are not people therefore have no rights in the same way that in Dred Scott the court decided black people are not people and thus have no rights.
Click to expand...
Thanks, very interesting
 
NigelTufnel said:
My guess is that Jon Runyan is just an idiot. As an Eagles fan, I like the guy. But I get the sense that he was recruited to run for Congress not based on his policy wonkishness and wealth of knowledge.
Click to expand...
So, he will be someone puppet? ahahahahahaha
 
Damocles said:
What? "separation"? No. It doesn't.
Click to expand...


I don't see it...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top