I had a question about the Dred Scott comment by Shrub

[othermeans]

Why didn't Kerry hammer Shrub when he made that comment about activist judges and cited Dred Scott? It seemed a perfect reason for an activist judge since Dred Scott was a slave who had been held in the North and then sued for freedom based on the fact that he had lived in the North. The court ruled against him and sent him back South as a slave (I think to Zell Miller's family just kidding)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. other folks here

say it was code for overturning Roe V Wade. One thread here said to google abortion Dred Scott.

[IconoclastIlene]

2. OIC

[kikiek]

3. If Kerry tried to hammer Bush everytime he misspoke he wouldn't get

any of his own messages through. I think Kerry did a perfect job answering the questions and staying focused. Bush is so off the wall with what he says if you pay too much attention to it you could confuse people as to what your plans are. I think they do it on purpose, and they know that you can't correct all the lies he says.

[othermeans]

5. See I thought * whole comment was so garbled Senator Kerry could

have made him sound like a schoolboy when he corrected him and gave a quick history of the decision.

[kikiek]

10. He probably could. People were looking bored when Bush was talking

I thought. I think they have problems tracking what the hell he's saying anyways. Apparently from what others have said this is because it was a coded message. Much more of it is than we know I guess.

[sundancekid]

4. Dred Scott is CODE for laying the foundation to reverse Roe v. Wade

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.

[othermeans]

8. Well if it is Shrub did a crappy job of explaining it but my point is

the argument was to activist judges. Shrub went afield with some garbled piece of history and I felt Senator Kerry should have taken him out to the woodshed given him a sound spanking and sent him back to Karl Rove for a history brush up.

[beaconess]

12. I think Kerry was smart not to do that . . .

While you may know and understand the Dred Scott case, most people probably are probably not familiar with it and, unless Kerry went into some detail, its significance would have gone right over their heads. I think it would have been too difficult and distracting for Kerry to use his minute to launch into a jurisprudential lesson on the Dred Scott case - especially given that it's likely been 30 years or so since he even read it.

As it was, Bush's comments were so garbled and unintelligible, that most people didn't get it anyway. I think it's better for Kerry to allow the Dred Scott issue to percolate a little and for his surrogates - such as the NAACP, People for the American Way and Alliance for Justice - to get the word out.

[BillZBubb]

6. You are correct on Dred Scott. I rolled my eyes once again.

When the Chimperor said that. He doesn't know Dred Scott from Marge Schott.

The Taney court were strictly interpreting the Constitution. Only activists would have sided with Scott.

But, it's fundy code since they link Dred Scott being property with a fetus being property. This was for Bush*s ultra right religious base. It's just too bad a vast majority of Americans are too stupid or too lazy or too indifferent to care that he panders to those nuts.

[creeksneakers2]

7. I've looked and agree this was code

Knowing it was code and not a blunder, what did Bush mean when he said:

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.

?

[othermeans]

9. I know what is wrong with * but more importantly what is wrong with

the people who think he is brilliant leader and (laughter suppressed) debater? I had read here that he may be suffering from some physical problem from his years of drinking but I really don't know about the people who follow him. Years of brainwashing?

[kikiek]

11. Someone I know told me today the economy was doing great. Honest to

God I freeze when people are that delusional.

[beaconess]

13. You have to read his whole comment in context -

He was talking about the premise of the Dred Scott case, not the Constitution.