For Dred Scott and against Kelo. Why am I not surprised?
Striking down the Missouri Compromise for a start. If the court was correct in the ruling that a black man, free or slave, was not a citizen and therefore could not bring suit then the decision should have ended there. Why address the underlying issue of the suit; whether states or the government had the right to ban slave ownership within their borders or in federal territory?
Deliberately misstating my position. Why am I not surprised.
I am not "For" Dred Scott. I merely recognize that it is a correct interpretation of the laws in existence at the time it was rendered. If it were not so, then there would have been no need to pass amendments to repeal the Dred Scott decision.
As for Kelo v New London, the seizure of private property by a tyrannical government to give to someone else for the purpose of making profit, and that ultimately failed to do anything beneficial for anyone... I am not surprised that you support it, but I think the vast majority of conservatives on this Web site are completely against it.
Why address the underlying issue of the suit; whether states or the government had the right to ban slave ownership within their borders or in federal territory?
Under the law of the time, it was an assault on property rights. Property rights are fundamental and cannot be impugned by a State. Same thing with Kelo.