At her debate, Christine O’Donnell couldn’t come up with the name of a recent Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed, so why not ask this question of the dumb Republican candidate in your race, everyone? That’s what Congressman John Adler did against his opponent, former Philadelphia Eagles tackle Jon Runyan. Hey, at least this guy could come up with a name of a Supreme Court decision! But no, that Dred Scott thing wasn’t too recent.
When that was pointed out, Runyan couldn’t come up with a Supreme Court case. But c’mon, what else has the Supreme Court ruled on besides Dred Scott? Basically nothing. That’s one of two or three things they’ve ever ruled on. This is a gotcha question that has no place in our politics.
If they have a Heisman Trophy for good participation in trying to remember the name of a Supreme Court case, this guy should get it. [TPM]
{ 134 comments }
"I don't know what it is, but I know for a fact that it's bad."
so he disagrees with Marbury v. Madison, then?
The federalist society does in fact disagree with Marbury v. Madison, and they make a lot of noise about bad Commerce Clause decisions, too.
How about Dartmouth vs. State of New Hamshire? And that's not an annual football game, either.
Well, TECHNICALLY . . . Dred Scott has never been overruled by the Court.
(The Civil War, and the 13th & 14 Amendments, are not case precedent.)
So Chief Justice Roberts should be citing old "Scottie" in the near future . . . right after "President" Obama's owner shows up to claim him.
So TECHNICALLY, could someone actually sue the federal government on the grounds that the Emancipation Proclamation was an unconstitutional power grab by the executive branch?
I hope I didn't just give the Teabaggers a new talking point.
The EP really didn't do anything, seeing as how it only impacted people who were not technically subject to the US's jurisdiction at the time it was made. But the 13th and 14th supersede it, and finding standing to challenge it would be a bitch.
Now you're just giving the Southerners more fuel for the whole "We're still a nation under occupation" argument.
Fuck em. I've been in enemy territory for 20+ years and this "occupation" is what's keeping them from falling into 4th world status.
Not to get too far off topic but has the Opus Dei wing of the court decided if corporations that die before baptism go to Limbo? I know you're a lawyer and are up on this shit.
I call Obama! If the President's my slave Pizza Hut will BE FORCED to make me that pizza with fig newtons baked into the crust- by an executive order, if necessary!
Does that mean Michelle is up for grabs? Put a kerchief on her and you have the sexiest Aunt Jemima ever.
Um, Neilist, my second-favorite asshole, the lack of overrulingness — or whatever lawyers call it — would be due to the fact that even the most aggressive litigator might think twice before attacking an actual provision of the Constitution — as what? unConstitutional? — unless he/she had a remarkably lenient fee arrangement.
But, then again, is there any way you could discreetly point out this opportunity for creative lawyering to Orly Taitz?
At least he's against slavery.
Just like how Sarah Silverman recently congratulated the TED techno-conference geeks for finally speaking out against slavery, right?
To be fair, this is no easy question for a righty: the Supreme Court of the last 10 or 15 years has been a downright bonanza for them.
True that. Back in the day, at least, wingnuts could yell "Impeach Earl Warren!"
Agreed! Maybe that eminent domain decision a few years ago — government can take property for private purpose.
The point — I suppose — is where is the unconstitutionality goin' on?
That's the lame ass case Chrissie O'D's handlers finally came up with for her. Kelo v. City of New London, though, contrary to the proto-TB wail and alarm, has not led to jack booted government redevelopment specialists knocking down everyone's doors and flipping their homes, so even that has lost its luster.
Don't peddle that line in San Diego, where a late-night budget deal in Sacramento is going to use redevelopment $ to give the stupid fucking football team a $500M subsidy to build a new stadium while the city's going broke and closing libraries.
Lawrence (SP?) v. Texas which legalized homosexuality, bestiality and general sinfulness
where all the white robes at?
That was "Kelo" – any right wing nut ought to be able to spit that one out. The trouble with it, if you actually read the decision, is that it is a "states' rights" decision. The good people of the state of Connecticut decided private property could be taken by eminent domain for private use. And the Supremes agreed.
The problem with that is that it favors
republicanwealthy developers. Tough for any GOP member to not look at that and not get a money boner.This guy is 340 pounds, why not just insist on wrasslin' to see who wins?
If they can't remember Roe Vs. Wade than they are too stupid iven to be a Republican candidate.
Out of curiosity, what year do you think Roe v Wade happened in?
Good zing, but it was around 100 years more recent than Dred Scott. So…
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure only one of them was joking.
Take our Country Back to Plessy v. Ferg!
Eagles v. Redskins?
Boxers v. Briefs?
Ass v. Hole in the ground?
There, I have 3 smartypants.
Missionary vs. Doggie-style?
Yes, a famous slit decision
NEEDZ MOAR SPUDS MACKENZIE
I resemble that remark.
There we go.
I'll refer my opponent to the case of Laurel v. Hardy in the issue of sack-o-flour to the face, and later the follow up of Ricardo v. Lucy, in which the government's practice of perpetually speeding up the chocolate conveyor belt lead to a real comedic mishap. And of course, one cannot forget the deplorable decision in Abbot v. Costello, when the court really over-reached in declaring that the state of Iowa had to move I Don't Know to catcher.
That's our third baseman, asshole.
I've been waiting for this day to come. I knew one of these morons would finally just blurt out Dred Scott since it is the only one they ever heard of other than Roe v. Wade.
Of course this day came sooner than I expected thanks to a football player that probably had one too many knocks to the head.
For baggers Dred Scott is a code word for Roe v. Wade.
"Joe v. the Volcano", "Kramer v. Kramer" , "Taylor v. K.West" …come on Runyan , say something !
I was thinking Alien Versus Predator. But he probably actually likes that one because those (illegal) Aliens got their comeuppance.
Freddy v. Jason also, because isn't that a gay porno?
Kramer v. Godzilla (1983)
And finally, "Eagles v. Dallas" (2007) FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!
great scott! i dread that this person might get into the congress.
okay, you can hit me with the bad-pun stick now.
Hey, being able to name a Supreme Court decision, no matter how old, shows Runyan to be one of the leading intellectual lights of the GOP, despite all the blows to the head.
Find it hard to believe that Roe v. Wade isn't the first thing blurted out.
He's running in South Jersey, the Philly burbs, the Republican candidates around here no not to talk about their opposition to women's rights.
Ha ha, now you can't edit no errors in yo post.
He thought Rovey Wade was that cheerleader who wouldn't give him the time of day back in high school. Still can't believe she made it to the Supreme Court.
Some southerners think Roe vs Wade is about decidin' which of the two ways you cross the Potomac to get home.
I got no knowledge of the guy, but maybe he don't disagree with R v W?
This is another case of a teatard insane right GOPer going and telling one of those conservatard "in-jokes" that they like to tell each otherm but that the sane world isn't supposed to understand.
Mentioning Dred Scott is a dogwhistle, it means "I am pro-life, the Roe decision was just as evil as the Dred Scott decision, and if the court can overturn Dred Scott, then it can overturn Roe." Serially, all that is in there, in secret teabagger code.
Aw, c'mon, no steroid-crazed ex-football player — a lineman fer Jeebus sake — is that subtle. It's just one he could remember from the last grade he payed attention in, just before his neck size got larger than is IQ.
No man, this is a constantly repeated meme among the conservatives, its a dogwhistle, even this meathead would know it.
So are there people arguing in favor of Dred Scott? I really don't want to know the answer do I?
Seriously, it is a dog-whistle. One that even the stupidest tea-bagger can remember, too. Even George Bush came out against Dred Scott.
What a mind that man had! To wit:
"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all—you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America."
George Bush spoke to the equality of America: he made it more equal by dumbing it down and impoverishing it.
More direct than that – the SC got that wrong, they get everything wrong, so nothing they say should be respected. Covers Roe, overturning the Lechner era court/expanding commerce clause, Brown, etc.
When this picture http://obama.3cdn.net/f50f89f95367a271b5_dbm6ivqu... appeared just before the election in '08, I indulged myself in the notion that Dred Scott would be finally refudiated when Hopey, who's in the lower right, took office. The Old Courthouse in the background is where Dred Scott was decided.
Not giving up yet, though.
prommie, I'll readily concede to you on knowledge of dog-whistles, because I just don't pay that much attention.
But this seems like stupid. Nobody but the already-convinced are going to recognize, let alone appreciate, this whistle. Everybody else is going to go "What? The last SCOTUS decision he can recall was 150 years ago?"
I have no idea if that will lower the opinion of the non-base; but I cannot imagine that it will raise it.
I have the same problem explaining why Moses slaughtered the Huguenots, or whatever. Hard to discuss things you don't believe in.
"Moses and the Huguenots"!! I LOVE that movie!
Hill v Thomas, as decided by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, Prosecutor in Chief.
For more recent decisions, there's always last Thursday's turkey on rye, hold the mayo decision. Thomas dissented and went for cheetohs and coke, with a side of pube.
what about that waterways decision, the one about rowing or wading…nothing?
I see what you did there.
Are you referring to this one?
dinghy v full-body rubbers?
No — Man in the Boat v. Pudding-Cup Beard.
You have to admit it is safe to go with a Supreme Court Decision that was nullified by the Civil War. You are not going to upset that many people with that.
Good God, just cite Lionel Hutz V. The Never Ending Story and be done with it.
You have to admit it was blatant false advertising.
Thats why your the law talking guy.
Wanna bet? Been to rural South Carolina lately?
Supporters of former Philadelphia Eagle lineman Runyan shamed Adler by throwing batteries at him and kicking the shit out of Santa Claus.
Wile E. Coyote vs. Acme
http://bit.ly/xHGOL
I'm so tired of this gotcha debating….Jon Runyan can't even see the Supreme Court from his house, fer crissakes…
Nix v. Hedden: The U.S. Supreme Court on May 10, 1893 declared that the tomato is a vegetable, based on the popular definition that classifies vegetables by use, that they are generally served with dinner and not dessert.
The whole nation has gone downhill since then.
Wasn't that the day that the wage scale of immigrant workers went to 50 dollars an hour to pick tomatoes?
I'll have to check with John McCain.
And the tomato industry therefore avoided the duty applied to fruit. But you knew that.
I dislike Schwarzenegger Vs Entertainment Merchants because it is being heard on Election Day and I have to work the polls that day!!
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the candidates of the new "Know-Nothing" Party are actually winning points by their flamboyant displays of ignorance. Frightening.
"A recent Supreme Court decision with which I disagree? Ah, yes. That would certainly be having your wife call up Anita Hill at 7:30 on a Saturday morning just to harass her."
He was continually on the losing end of "Runyon v Michael Strahan" but luckily for him, Donovan McNabb was usually the one who absorbed the damages.
These Republican/Teabagger (I can't tell most of them apart any more) candidates are like rejects from Leno's Jaywalking segments.
Yeah. They all look alike.
Wait, he's a football player and doesn't know the famous Less Filling vs. Tastes Great case? FAIL.
What about Bud v. Bud Light?
Of course, they also ought to ask these wingnuts "can you name a single piece of legislation proposed or passed during the Obama administration that either increases taxes or restricts gun ownership?" hamana-hamana-hamana
True dat.
"Brown v…I don't remember the rest, but your mother's a whore."
One would think that every candidate would have one of their lackeys working on an answer to this question and prepping them on their response 24/7. Unless, as bureaucrap notes, they love wallowing in their ignorance. Even if they just shouted "fuckin none of 'em!" at the top of their lungs it would less painful to watch…
Actually Adler wasn't referring to the Supreme Court decision when he replied "Dred Scott" — he was referring to a Judge Judy decision against a white guy with dreads named Scott, who borrowed his roommate's cashmere sweater and then spilled bongwater on it. $216.84, which Mr. Adler found excessive.
Wasn't that the plotline to Judge Dredd?
What about Wonkette v. Confluence? He could have kicked some libtard ass.
I think it's a crying shame our political discourse has been reduced to these "gotcha" questions.
Why can't more people be like Sheer "Am i An Idiot?" InSannity – get the candidates on your show for a free infomercial and grill with tough questions like "What's your favorite cookie?"
"My favorite cookie? Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years."
Long as we're wanderin off-topic, here's good news: the live stream at http://www.channelsurfing.net/watch-msnbc.html for MSNBC is working again. Tweety gets me through the afternoon some days, particularly when he loses it. His show is not, to put it mildly, "visually oriented" so you don't have to actually watch.
Agreed you don't have to actually watch. Also, since Tweety never finishes asking a question and letting the guests answer, you don't have to actually listen either.
Bush v. Gore.
Next Question.
Nailed it!
I disagree with that ruling, but that's a case the Repubicans and TP'ers surely love. Except the Federal government usurped Florida's process of choosing electors, though the Constitution plainly says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….".
Actually, the best part of the ruling in the instant case, Bush v. Gore, was the paragraph wherein the author writing for the majority noted that the decision could not be used as a precedent in any subsequent proceeding. That's SCOTUS-talk which means, "This is utter, total bullshit."
Here's a hint for all these folks:
When asked say "Nebbia v. New York. I believe deeply in the concept of freedom of contract."
The person who asked will be speechless.
The opponent will awed.
The entire blogosphere will light up with haf-assed readings of a 75 year old case.
It's a no-brainer.
Milk, it does a Supreme Court body good
Okay, fine…personally, I didn't like it either when they gave Diana Ross her own billing…
Ironic he spit this out the same week the NFL finally decided it should probably do something to try and cut down the number of blows to the head the players take.
Are you sure he didn't mean Michael Scott vs Dunder Mifflin?
I'd have to say Quaalude? Cuomo? Kilo? You know? The one where they tore down my so-called "blighted" Cape Cod to put up a defense industry business park. Fuckers.
"Kilo."
Very funny!
Hey, at least Runyan managed to refrain from blurting out something like, "The Eagles had some colored players and they were just like part of the family." Another spectacular victory for the Tea Party! *bald eagle high-fiving Jesus*
♪♫ Let the Eagle score… ♪♫
'Cause he's never scored before…
How about E. Fudd v. D. Duck (1947). I'm still having a hard time getting over that one.
Teabaggers all hate the way the Supreme Court trampled all over states' rights in Gonzales v. Raich.
Oh, wait…
Vick v. Dog, dawg.
But what about Ross v Wilson/Ballard (Diana v Mary/Flo)? Wasn't that noteworthy.
So he disagrees with a decision that affirimed slavery. He is so not getting invited to the National Federation of Republican Women board-of-directors meeting next year.
How about Lawrence v. Texas where the Court ruled (2003) that the Repugs could keep screwing the American people up the ass – without lube even!
How about Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah where the Court ruled that Republicans could continue to practice voodoo on the economy – and kill chickens!
They also can't like Gideon vs. Wainwright – it gave people the right to an attorney – except in Texas where you are still given a giant mushroom
But ask them which sports team Justice "You know, the brown girl" Sotomayor roots for and they can probably tell you … along with ten reasons why it makes her a communist to side with the richest team in béisbol.
Looks like the NFL should have been looking into that concussion/brain damage thing a long time ago.
What is it about football that makes their bone-headed players want to become Republican politicians in their dotage? This is a problem even pre-dating Reagan (who played college football before moving on to (playing in a movie) pro-ball.
Name a Supreme Court decision?
How about "Ralph?"
Well, the good news here is that wingnuts still haven't figured out that saying "Griswold v. Connecticut" will not only make them seem smart and head off any follow-up questions (it's the not one of the tip-of-the-tongue landmark cases), and also throw some red meat to their wingnut base (Griswold v. Connecticut's principles formed the basis for both Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas), and while providing nice "I don't actually hate gays and womenfolk, I just has a judicial philosophy" cover for actually hating gays and womenfolk.
God help us if they ever figure that out.
shhh … don't give them ideas.
THE NEW COMMERCE CLAUSE ANALYSIS
Justice SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court:
"This case presents a question of the scope of Congress’s power under the commerce clause. To simplify and clarify our commerce clause analysis, we have consolidated two cases in which petitioners challenge the constitutionality of two federal laws that allegedly exceed Congress’s power to regulate commerce – (1) a law banning local possession of marijuana; and (2) a law criminalizing violence against women. Applying our new standard, we find the marijuana law constitutional and the other one, well, not so much.
You'll to scroll down a bit to get to it…but it's worth so doing…
http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_arc...
Shorter Scalia:
"In a hilarious coincidence, it ends up that a plain reading of the Constitution happens to directly correspond with every political view that I happen to have, making it constitutional to ban anything I dislike, and unconstitutional to ban anything I don't give a shit about. How convenient!"
How about the dealing with OJ vs Gloves People shouldn't pick oranges with leather gloves that don't fit
"Are you referring to a decision under Chief Justice Wapner or Chief Justice Judy?"
I would've given him true ol' skool cred had he said "West v. Barnes"
It was decided in my life time as well as that of most of these candidates and if you don't think these people would push back against Roe v Wade you've got another think coming,
Comments on this entry are closed.