Bush may have energized Black Americans to vote

[Thrill]

even more. Not that they needed to be energized.

Dread Scott?????????

Can you believe he brought that up. I would expect every African America n radio stations to be all over this.

[unblock]

1. woah, i missed that. what do he say about dred scott?

[betterdeadthanred]

4. Right here

"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. "

What an idiot he is.

[GreenArrow]

8. he doesn't know or care what the Constitution says

unless he is trying to subvert it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. If Bush wants a 'strict constructionist' on the court,

I assume he wants them to count African Americans as 3/5 of a vote.

[olddem43]

7. Ain't that about what is done in Florida?

you know, like disenfranchisement?

[aden_nak]

3. I had to think about it for a moment.

Obviously, I know what the Dred Scott case was all about, but it's not something I would ever, EVER imagine a politician bringing up. I think my eyes might have actually permanently widened when I realized what he was about to talk about. You notice the audience was giving him the "What the fuck?" look. I mean, that's kind of like shoving your hand into a wood chipper and then complaining about the blood.

[Kinkistyle]

5. Maybe he is trying to run on Lincoln's platform.

Not that he really could. Even in this day and age :D

[GreenArrow]

6. God, he sounded so

fucking stupid on that answer. And he simply didn't know when to shut up, just kept jibbering.

[bluestateguy]

9. A fair reading of the Constitution would say slavery was protected

Hence, Taney was not giving a "personal opinion" in the decision. The language of the Constitution was certainly understood as protecting slavery: the 3/5 compromise, abolition of the slave trade in 1808 and a fugitive slave provision.

That was not a personal opinion unsupported by the facts. The Constitution protected slavery and if Bush really was a "strict constructionist" he would have to support the Court's Dred Scott decision.