[daniel1212]

This was an excerpt.

Anyone see any similarities to Obergefell vs. Hodges? SCOTUS basically defines blacks as subhuman in one case, and defines marriage as consisting of the union of same genders in another. And every state and employee is expected to follow it.

Kim Davis is like an employee who was told blacks are now considered animals and must sign licenses to enslave them, contrary to what her state constitution said when she was elected, and must face employment or jail if she refuses to accept this radical change in her job description made on the federal level.

Yet many "conservatives" hold that she needs to just "do her job."

[daniel1212]

Chief Justice John Roberts compared Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) to the Dred Scott case, as another example of trying to settle a contentious issue through a ruling that went beyond the scope of the Constitution.[41]

[VitacoreVision]

Dred Scott's Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America

Andrew P. Napolitano, 2009


Racial hatred is one of the ugliest of human emotions. And the United States not only once condoned it, it also mandated it?wove it right into the fabric of American jurisprudence. Federal and state governments legally suspended the free will of blacks for 150 years and then denied blacks equal protection of the law for another 150.

How did such crimes happen in America? How were the laws of the land, even the Constitution itself, twisted into repressive and oppressive legislation that denied people their inalienable rights?

Taking the Dred Scott case of 1957 as his shocking center, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano tells the story of how it happened and, through it, builds a damning case against American statesmen from Lincoln to Wilson, from FDR to JFK.

Born a slave in Virginia, Dred Scott sued for freedom based on the fact that he had lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Scott, denied citizenship to blacks, and spawned more than a century of government-sponsored maltreatment that destroyed lives, suppressed freedom, and scarred our culture.

Dred Scott's Revenge is the story of America's long struggle to provide a new context?one in which "All men are created equal," and government really treats them so.

[libertylover]

The 3 worst decisions in legal history that I can think of:
Dred Scott,
Roe v. Wade,
and Obergefell vs. Hodges.

All of these result from judges PRETENDING things to be true that aren’t true.

In Dred Scott they pretended that black people aren’t people.
In Roe v. Wade they pretend that people in the womb aren’t people.
In Obergefell vs. Hodges they pretend that homosexuality is normal.
(And btw, the Nazis pretended that Jews aren’t people.)

These issues will never go away as long as people continue to pretend.

[Amendment10]

Comparing Dred Scott v. Sandford to Obergefell v. Hodges (Obergefell) is like comparing apples and oranges imo. More specifically, by deciding Obergefell against the state, Obama’s pro-gay activist justices wrongly ignored that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called right to gay “marriage.” In other words, pro-gay activist justices actually had no constitutionally enumerated gay “marriage” right to throw at the states via the 14th Amendment.

In fact, the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the 14th Amendment applies only those rights expressly amended to the Constitution by the states to the states.

“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)

And more importantly, although the 14th Amendment has problems imo, the states effectively overturned the Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford within the framework of the Constitution by ratifying the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

But as previously mentioned, it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay “marriage.” Activist justices wrongly established the so-called right to gay “marriage” outside the framework of the Constitution. They did so by breaching the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers, stealing 10th Amendment-protected state power to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay “marriage” to legalize the so-called right to gay “marriage” from the bench.

And what’s arguably worse then the Court’s PC decision in Obergefell is that regardless that the Founding States gave Congress the specific power to remove Constitution-ignoring justices from the bench, the post-17th Amendment ratification has refused to work with the House to impeach and remove activist justices from the bench against the will of many states.

The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and the activist justices that they confirm and then refuse to remove from the bench as well.