Dred Scott? GREAT SCOT!

[PCIntern]

You know, when Gore mentioned Dingle-Norris or whatever four years ago, the announcers all started pulling off right there, slobbering about how Gore was just so out of the people's loop, etc. This doofus mentions Dred Scott decision and is gonna get away with it? WTF?

[Tamyrlin79]

1. Not Analogous...

The Dingle Norris thing was pretty much inconsequential. The Dred Scott decision is an historic decision that is generally said to have led to/paved the way for the Civil War. A very wrongheaded and consequential decision that tore the country apart in service of a partisan objective. The two instances are not analogous.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

2. You are missing the OP's point

Point is, Gore was skewered four yrs ago in the debates for bringing up something four years old at the time. Tonight bush brought up something over 100 years old.

[unblock]

5. he wasn't skewered so much because it was old,

but because it made him sounds like an out-of-touch policy wonk who can't relate to the common man.

because apparently it's better to have a president unfamiliar with important legislative initiatives and stuff like that.

[w4rma]

21. No, apparantly its better to have a guy willing to redivert our money

into the pockets of the owners of big buisnesses.

[Carla in Ca]

23. Can it help Kerry win Missouri?

n/t

[unblock]

3. right. they don't teach about dingle norris in high school history....

[tmooses]

4. Bush Took That Tough Stand

and said he would not suport a justice who supported slavery. Boy, he really does stick his neck out.

[0rganism]

16. Well, that rules out Rhenquist

Nice to know there'll be SOME standards.

[bogey18]

35. that was very funny

and so true - people don't know Rhenquist's background. He has probably had as much to do with the dumbing of America as anyone over the past 20 years.

[SoCalDemocrat]

34. That wasn't the only issue he was looped on

I was laughing Bush was so lost on this question.

It wasn't the only one though where he threw out random nonsense. Some of his other answers were equally scrambled.

[ThoughtCriminal]

6. I future SC confirmation hearings

we need to find out just where court appointees stand on "Dred Scott".

[H2O Man]

13. 6 to 3 in favor

on the current court.

[bogey18]

7. I know

This thread will probably die, but I was dumbfounded by that response - what the hell did he say ? That he wouldn't appoint a justice who supported the Dred Scott decision? He juxtaposed that with not supporting a justice who wouldn't want the words under God in the pledge of allegiance - WTF was that man talking about? Not wanting religion in schools is a personal opinion? Supporting slavery is a personal opinion? Dred Scott? Do you think he meant Roe vs. Wade?

Dred Scott?

I think the timed format greatly helps Bush because if you allowed this guy to ramble on then everyone would be able to see what a complete idiot he is.

Isn't he a lawyer? Dred Scott?

[Nancy Waterman]

9. I wonder if he meant Roe v Wade

Did he actually mention slavery?

[lefty_WOHM]

28. He did actually mention slavery

talked about interpreting the Constitution re. personal property rights. Then he started to say that the Constitution says that "all are created equal", until he finally remembered that that was the Declaration of Independence.

[CitySky]

12. he's not a lawyer

MBA, no J.D.

Otherwise, he might understand why the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment. He's not too clear on the Fourth Amendment. It's "Fuzzy Constitution" to him.

:(

[Czolgosz]

25. He applied to The University of Texas Law School and didn't

get in (despite many recommendations arranged by his dad and grandfather). This is part of why he hates lawyers so much.

[Southern Patriot]

18. Karl Rove or somebody probably told him to mention

Dred Scott in order to play to the home crowd.

Somebody tell me if I'm wrong. Wasn't Dred Scott captured in MO. and returned to slavery?

Anyway, I bet A LOT of people were scratching their heads over where Dred Scott fit into the question--- or even today's Supreme Court.

[lefty_WOHM]

27. Yes. The Dred Scott decision was made

in St. Louis (at least the original trial, which was upheld by the SC, I think). The courthouse in question still stands, next to the Arch. The Dred Scott decision is discussed in every MO history class--perhaps that's why he bothered to bring it up. Still way out in left field, IMO.

[LiberalFighter]

37. If mentioned in every MO history class...

how will gw* fare with MO voters?

[sundancekid]

39. make that RIGHT field ... very extreme RW field, it's code to reverse Roe

take a look at their twisted-sister logic from the National Right to Life website ... (and ALL RWnuts know this CODE language)!!!!!

http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL699/slave.html

~snip~
Court Blunders on Slavery and Abortion

One of the more frequently used arguments to defend abortion goes like this: The United States Supreme has settled the issue. Because the Court has ruled that abortion is legal, it must therefore be a correct and moral act beyond challenge.

In an 1857 court case, known as the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves, even freed slaves, and all their descendants, had no rights protected by the Constitution and that states had no right to abolish slavery. Where would Blacks be today if that reasoning had not been challenged?

The reasoning in Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade is nearly identical. In both cases the Court stripped all rights from a class of human beings and reduced them to nothing more than the property of others. Compare the arguments the Court used to justify slavery and abortion. Clearly, in the Court's eyes, unborn children are now the same "beings of an inferior order" that the justices considered Blacks to be over a century ago.
~snip~

We've got to spread the REAL reason behind smarmysmirk's mention of Dred Scott case -- ANOTHER perfect example of their bait-and-switch -- they want us to be baited with their "compassion" toward injustices of slavery, BUT they plan to SWITCH to justify cheneying with Roe decision.

[arikara]

40. I think you're right

He was sending a message to his fundy base. Wasn't there a threat to start a third party if he didn't toe the line?

[elperromagico]

Dred Scott was baaaad, mmmkay?

:D

[elperromagico]

8. Dupe.

NEVER CLICK TWICE!!! :cry:

[bogey18]

10. Question: Where does Clarence Thomas stand on Dred Scott?

Answer: wherever Antonin Scalia tells him to.

Dred Scott - WTF?

[beaconess]

11. THIS man is appointing judges?

"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. "

Uhh - no, George. That's NOT what the judges in Dred Scott said. This case was not about whether slavery was allowed. It was about whether a man enslaved in Missouri became free once his slaveowner brought him into the free state of Illinois. The Court held that he was not, that his status was determined under the laws of Missouri, not Illinois and, thus, he remained a slave, even though Illinois was a free state.

But it is comforting to know that, despite his complete ignorance of case law he spouted tonight, George Bush would likely not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who thinks "the Constitution allows slavery because of personal property rights." At least, I think that's what he was trying to say.

I can't believe this race is even close.

[DivinBreuvage]

31. The judges in Dred Scott actually said quite a bit more than that

And in fact Bush, as incomprehensible as this is to me, is closer to the overall truth.

If the majority decision had simply concerned itself with the difference in state laws between Illinois and Missouri it wouldn't have provoked so much Northern outrage. The problem was that the fanatical pro-slavery Chief Justice Roger Taney was not content in his decision to rule on the issue at hand, but pursued the defense of the institution of slavery to such an extent that he appeared to some to be hinting that no Northern state had the legal right to abolish slavery within its very own borders. This, along with the fact that the "dough-face" president James Buchanan (a Northerner who was so beholden to Southern slaveholders that he eventually alienated his own party in the North) had apparently had some degree of collusion with Taney, is what set firebells ringing through the Free States.

That being said, though, Bush is lying. He most certainly would appoint the Dred Scott type of judge to the Supreme Court.

[beaconess]

36. The Court did not determine whether slavery was permissible

but whether blacks were entitled to any rights of citizenship. Taney's opinion treated slavery as a given that was so acceptable, it shouldn't even be called in to question. He simply used it as further proof of the inferiority of blacks, further justifying his insistence that the original intent of the founding fathers was that blacks "had no rights which a white man is bound to respect."

He also insisted that he was not injecting his personal opinions into his decision, but that he was merely "interpret{ing} the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and {administering} it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted."

Bush loves to claim that he won't appoint activist judges, but wants judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas - two of THE most activist judges ever to sit on the Supreme Court.

Go figure.

[depakid]

14. Of course he does't mention Lochner

which is just about as infamous a decision as Dread Scott- and which at least on of Bush's nominees overtly and vocally supports.

http://hnn.us/articles/1780.html

Kerry missed a huge opportunity here to tell people just what kinds of judges Bush is appointing. For chrissakes, one of his appointees has had his license suspended for several years.

[Southern Patriot]

19. Kerry could have hit a home run if he'd just described a couple

of Bush's nominees for lower judgeships: Pickering et al.

[ThoughtCriminal]

15. btw - I thought Kerry's response was one of his best

nt

[Homerr]

17. *News Flash* Bush against slavery!

What an idiot he is for running his mouth where it did not need to go!

[Elidor]

20. No politician should ever get caught talking about Dingles.

Especially Dingle-Norris. To the Heathers in the media, it reeks of geek.

[Uzybone]

22. I will not appoint judges who will reintroduce segregation

thats the best that Bush can promise.

[Sparkly]

24. The thing is, he used a BAD decision to back up "strict constructionists"

Unless I'm mistaken, Dred Scott is a reason NOT to appoint conservative "strict constructionists," who the Chimp said he WOULD appoint. These are the people who said, "Well, the Constitution doesn't say we have to count slaves as citizens, so we won't."

And it doesn't SAY we need to count women as equal to men.
And it doesn't SAY there's a right to privacy, even in our wombs.
It doesn't say alot of things specifically, which "strict constructionists" like to remind us.

So the Chimp is more in line with the Dred Scott decision than not, when he said the Constitution "doesn't speak to the equality of America."

I don't know what the heck he was TRYing to say, but that is what he said.

Transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6209704/

[lefty_WOHM]

29. Even his other example was bad

He said he wouldn't appoint judges who think you can't say the Pledge in public schools b/c it contains the words "under God". Um, wouldn't that be a strict interpretation of the 1st amendment?

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

30. Ooo, good point there! I didn't even think of that!

:hi:

[Tsiyu]

32. Thanks for this, Sparkly

I watched the debate then listened on radio and I still don't know exactly what * said here. I was just now wishing for a transcript, but it almost sounded like a veiled support of slavery and a Freudian slip concerning the Constitution's guarantee of equality.

Thanks for the link. :wtf: :kick:

[private_ryan]

26. because it's relevant

slavery is the most pressing issue of our time. That's why :)

[Andromeda]

33. Bush would appoint Justices...

who are strict constructionists adhering to precise Constitutional interpretation and he says he's against the Dred Scott decision?

That's exactly who he would appoint to the Supreme Court. The Dred Scott decision was compared to the Bush vs Gore decision in 2000 because of the shocking actions of a corrupt SCOTUS.

Shows how ignorant Bush is and nobody caught that.

[Tesibria]

38. Dred Scott = Roe v. Wade (they HOPE)

Google "abortion and Dred Scott" (2,900+ results)-- or better yet -- google "Roe v. Wade" and "Dred Scott" (4,780+ results). Pro-lifers say that RvW is the equivalent of Dred Scott -- and needs to be overturned just as Dred Scott was.

:puke: