If you are going to plant yourself on the foundation of "The Courts are right", then you will have to accept Judge Taney's Dred Scott decision.
You see? Once more you are attempting to believe things that are contradictory.
Here's a piece of objectivity for you. The Courts are sometimes wrong, and the Courts are sometimes right. You can't merely accept what the court says as "proof" that something is correct. You have to think for yourself.
If the courts are always right, then Judge Taney was right. Smoke on that for awhile.
Do I agree with the Scott decision that as a slave Scott had no standing to sue in federal court? Yes, that part of the decision, while loathsome, is correct. Do I agree with everything he said after that? No, but since those comments were made in dicta then they are not binding as judicial precedent so it doesn't matter what he said.
You see? Once more you are attempting to believe things that are contradictory.
I don't see where.
Here's a piece of objectivity for you. The Courts are sometimes wrong, and the Courts are sometimes right. You can't merely accept what the court says as "proof" that something is correct. You have to think for yourself.
The objective question is who do I think is more likely to be right, you or the courts? Given past history, that's a no-brainer. I'll take the court's interpretation over yours every time.