Like Roe v Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges?
Taney ignored the constitution and history in his Dred Scott decision. Like Roe v Wade or our latest Gay marriage decision, The Court attempted to effect a political and social solution to issues they have no business being involved in the first place. In the process, they pervert the Constitution, and in the case of Scott set the table for the Civil War.
I can't even believe you are serious about defending the Dred Scott decision. That is horrendous!
And how did he ignore the constitution in his decision? Last I checked, it implicitly accepted slavery. It even has a clause in there to protect the institution.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
You may have never noticed it, but that clause is specifically about escaped slaves.
Now i'm all ears for you to explain how "Tanney Ignored the Constitution and History in his Dred Scott decision. "
The Court attempted to effect a political and social solution to issues they have no business being involved in the first place.
And why would the Court have no business in being involved in a legal matter that went through the appellate courts?
In the process, they pervert the Constitution, and in the case of Scott set the table for the Civil War.
Here's another clause in the Constitution that is specifically about slavery.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
I don't think you actually understand the document or history that you are arguing. There is still yet a third clause in the Constitution regarding slavery.
Slavery was completely constitutional prior to 1865. It is an ugly, unpleasant truth, but it is a truth, none the less.
I can't even believe you are serious about defending the Dred Scott decision.
You are arguing from emotion, I am arguing from logic. According to the laws of that time period, the Dred Scott decision was legally correct. It was ugly and immoral, but it met all the requirements of being a correct legal decision under the then existing paradigm of legal slavery.
You and others like you, keep trying to judge the first half of the 19th century by the first half of the 21rst century. You suffer from an inability to grasp the zeitgeist. You can't place your mind back into that era.
You shouldn't fool yourself into believing things that are not true just because you want them to be true.