You actually think today’s Democrats would support the Dred Scott decision? Your ad hominem was not only out of line but made no sense at all.
Sure, since Dred Scott was the Roe V Wade of its time -- judicial activism at its greatest, inventing constitutional law from penumbras and emanations, opinions written to protect a privileged class of people at the great expense of another.
In Dred Scott the victims were African slaves in Roe v. Wade unborn children.
Both are totally consistent with what Democrats have been since Day One.
Only the privileged class and victims have changed over time, Democrats never change.
Jim 0216: "Your ad hominem was not only out of line but made no sense at all."
No ad hominem, simply a factual description of Democrat thinking, which you appear to fully share.
How else could you even imagine trying to defend Chief Justice Taney's Dred Scott decision?
And now you have been made familiar with what we know and love about BroJoeK. He embodies the wish fulfillment methodology of liberal legal practice. The law means whatever makes him feel the most warm and fuzzy, not that ugly horrible stuff that he doesn't like.
Rational people do not attempt to fool themselves about the meaning of the law. I hate the 24th amendment which gives the right to vote to non-taxpayers, but i'm not going to interpret it to mean something I like just because I don't like what it means.