Dred Scott?

[SammyBlue]

WTF????

He will not support a Justice who supports slavery???

WTF is he talking about? And has * heard of the 13th Amendment???

Good job, Chimpy! You really proved something to me tonight! Dog shit is smarter!

[wryter2000]

1. Amazing

He must have just learned about Dred Scott in civics. If he'd typed it, it probably would have come out Dread Scott.

I guess I'm reassured that he wouldn't nominate any of those same justices again...seeing as they must have been dead for 100 years.

Moran!

[gavodotcom]

4. I'm actually a little comforted by this admission.

I was getting worried for a little while it might always be the case.

Arbeit macht frei!

[CityHall]

2. That's a relief

I'd been worried his "Ownership Society" was about restoring Dred Scott.

[Astarho]

3. When citing strict constructionism

there are many many MANY better examples better than Dred Scott.

[Astarho]

5. I think this is what Dumbass was trying to do.

He was trying to cite a case where justices used a strict interpretation of the constitution like the ones he would pick. Being the jeenyus he is, he picked Dred Scott, a case decided in favor of slavery (read into that what you will)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
The court ruled 7 to 2 against Scott, stating that slaves were property, and the court could not deprive people of their property without due process of law according to the Fifth Amendment.

This case was one of the major factors leading to the American Civil War.

Just like Bush, a uniter, not a divider. :eyes:

[Retrograde]

7. who knows what he was trying to say

Chief Justice Taney, who wrote in his decision that "the black man has no rights which the white man is bound to respect" freed his own slaves well before he ruled in the Dred Scott case and had in another case condemned slavery as a blot on our system (see http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Roger-Taney for a brief bio). Life wasn't black and white even back then.

So, does Bush mean he will nominate judges who will uphold the letter of the constitution over their own beliefs (slavery was legal and in the constitution at that time), or that he will pick judges who will support a conservative agenda of property rights over the rights of individuals?

Or is this the only Supreme Court case he could remember?


Trivia: Taney also ruled against the federal govt. in ex parte Merryman: the government argued that it could suspend certain civil rights in time of war (shades of the Patriot Act) - Taney disagreed.

[DulceDecorum]

6. Dred Scott (slavery) and

Buck v Bell (sterilzation, genocide, eugenics)
have NEVER been repealed by the Supreme Court.

In fact, the Downes v Bidwell and DeLima v Bidwell cases go further.
According to those two, the inhabitants of "un-incoporated territories"
such as the US Virgin Islands, and Guam,
are STILL,
TO THIS DAY,
property of Congress
who can dispose of them as it sees fit.

THAT is the reason why they
(and Puerto Rico)
are not allowed to vote in federal elections.

And the same goes for anyone who resides in Washington DC
and lists a DC address as their primary home.
SLAVERY EXISTS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES IN 2004.

And don't get me started on the 13th Ammendment,
the Federal Prisons Industry
and the reason why so many Black males find themselves working in federal prison sweatshops.