Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Dred Scott? Read this! Important!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
baltodemvet Donating Member (529 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 08:11 PM
Original message
Why Dred Scott? Read this! Important!
To his base, Bush's Dred Scott reference has sp
http://fairshot.typepad.com/fairshot/2004/10/dred_scott_roe_.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
XanaDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. When he started blibbering on about that
well, the Scott decision was not a civil rights' issue, as far as I understand it-it was a property-rights' issue.

That was one of the more surreal (among many moments) moments last night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. thank you very much....
that was informative!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minimus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. Okay, that is just too scary. Thanks for posting-
I will definitely begin passing this around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fairfaxvadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. That is just bizarre.
Okay, 2 things are bizarre:

1, the connection between Rove and Dred in the minds of anti-choicers is just incredible on its face,

2, do we believe that GWB really understands the angle or does he have just enough info to "make the argument" but if he were questioned further, could he explain this?

I'd like to see that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sundancekid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. the Dred-Rove CODE is well established ... see this link
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fairfaxvadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Right, gotcha.
I see THEIR argument, albeit extremely nutty, but I'm curious about how W understands it. I'd love to see him try to explain the code language. He gets concepts but always short on details and logic.

Doubt anyone would call him on it though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dark Jedi Donating Member (141 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. What Really Matters!
He might not understand everything, but it doesn't matter anyway. His handlers were able to get this radical message in code out to the base. It is now up to us to get out to the polls come Election Day and defeat these fundamentalist nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oly Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Jack Balkin has a good post on this and probably has much
more in his archives.

http://balkin.blogspot.com

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sundancekid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. thank you for this lead ... very good information there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. Holy sh*t!!
Good eye! Thanks for the heads up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. Knowing now he was speaking in code on this....
Edited on Sat Oct-09-04 08:31 PM by creeksneakers2
What did Bush mean by:

"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."

?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zinsky Donating Member (178 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I Think I KNow What He Was Going to Say.....

Bush was going to say that the Constitution says that "all men are created equal", which is wrong. That line is from the Declaration of Independence.

I, for one, was impressed that he caught himself before he explicitly said it, and thereby racked up another malapropism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolinian Donating Member (861 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
10. So that's why Bush loves OB/GYNs!
He's also using the doctors to hang the cost of malpractice insurance costs on trial lawyers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-09-04 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Lol- Brilliant.
Edited on Sat Oct-09-04 09:12 PM by depakote_kid
"Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their, their love with women all across this country."



Like Bush really cares about women receiving prenatal treatment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC