Jon Runyan On 'Dred Scott': GOP Candidate Can't Name Recent Supreme Court Case (VIDEO)

New Jersey GOP Congressional candidate Jon Runyan has spent a large part of the last 13 years on a football field, and a recent debate response given by the former NFLer might be leading some to believe that he wasn't brushing up on his Supreme Court history in his spare time.

At a debate Tuesday night, Runyan's Democratic opponent, Rep. John Adler, asked, "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?"

"That I strongly disagree with?" Runyan clarified, pausing before considering his final answer.

"Dred Scott," Runyan responded, drawing laughter from the audience.

Adler then posed the question again. Runyan reportedly did not respond.

The inept response comes days after Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell stumbled on a similar question in a debate with her opponent, Chris Coons.

While O'Donnell asked for a hint, and, in the end, never provided a direct answer, Runyan decided to provide a Supreme Court decision from 1857 as a recent ruling.

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case, however, is at least one that most candidates running for office would be proud to oppose. The 19th century decision upheld slavery and maintained that African-Americans were not citizens and not protected by the constitution.

WATCH:

Comments

[logic63]

12:09 PM on 10/22/2010

shout out. sorry

[logic63]

12:09 PM on 10/22/2010

This is code I understand to his supporters. There are certain key words they use that mean theya re against abortion and against civil rights, etc. To thinking people we hear them saying foolish things but to their followers, this is l;ike a shout ou.

[kaptaintripps]

09:53 PM on 10/21/2010

No!!!

Duh..........big surpsie, eh?

[Nick Mesterhazy]

09:38 PM on 10/21/2010

This is a result of getting hit too many time in the head .

[jmhprose]

08:41 PM on 10/21/2010

I have nothing but contempt for these TB's. Not an ounce of respect.

[Fortheloveofhumanity]

08:55 PM on 10/21/2010

Thank you for being tolerant and open.
Just like a liberal always is, tolerant and open.
Oh wait that is only for some one who agrees with you right?

[jmhprose]

09:07 PM on 10/21/2010

It is not about agreeing with me. It is about having some iota of a clue. Dred Scott?

[Threepointturn]

08:38 PM on 10/21/2010

That's okay, no one here has ever heard of Jon Runyan, either.

[Trogenhorse]

08:33 PM on 10/21/2010

Although not an appropriate answer for this question, this answer provides a question I often find my self asking. When conservatives say they want the laws judged "strictly according to the constitution", what does that mean? Which constitution? 1800?1850? 1901?1976?

Why is it no one ever challenges them on this?

[Fortheloveofhumanity]

08:56 PM on 10/21/2010

Well because the Constitution is amended but has not "changed" other then by legal rulings issued by the Supreme Court.

[ItsGettingWeird]

08:32 PM on 10/21/2010

I dread Scott Brown.

Does anyone else dread Scott?

[exaltedroots]

08:29 PM on 10/21/2010

What you guys forget is it is still 1870s to the Social Conservatives in the US. So Runyan's answer was actually correct.

[Jason Quackenbush]

07:26 PM on 10/21/2010

Gotcha question? Anybody should be able to run the list of conservative disappointments on the court in recent memory. There's Gonzalez failing to overturn Casey and Roe. There's Hamdan. There's Hamdi. There's Lawrence v. Texas. Not understanding the American constitution is one thing, but not understanding your own parties talking points? That's pathetic.

[IntelligenceQuantifier]

07:20 PM on 10/21/2010

This country tests you 'til the cows come home for any form of civil servant position. I think it's high time we start testing these so-called politicians to find out if they've been keeping up with their studies; before they are given the opportunity to embarrass themselves, their families and most importantly, the American people while the world watches.

[Fredday]

07:19 PM on 10/21/2010

hahaha Epic.

[Quotidien]

06:55 PM on 10/21/2010

It's a gotcha question, and a waste of time.

[WendellPerrySociety]

07:24 PM on 10/21/2010

No its an informed question - it shows that he is only interested in being a politician and not interested in the nuts and bolts of government. That is a fair question that is asked of a lot of candidates running for the US Senate or House.

[ItsGettingWeird]

08:25 PM on 10/21/2010

Palin & O'Donnell have already fallen flat on their faces with the same question about recent Supreme Court decisions. Even a dunce like Runyan should have seen this coming.

[JackHoffman]

06:49 PM on 10/21/2010

The scary part is that he is probably considered the smartest one in the herd.

[Devin1818]

05:51 PM on 10/21/2010

160 years... details, shmetails. That's the problem with progressives and liberals, they worry too much about facts.