“And that’s not the ruling at all.”
You have misunderstood and imaged more.
Imaged (imagined?) what?
His ruling went so far as to argue that not only did purported slaves not have standing, but that free blacks could not have standing because even they could not be citizens.
My post #51 was to someone else’s post #45 which included the statement “what he (Taney) wrote in the Dred Scott decision was so racist that it was anathema to a large part of the population.”
My point was that Taney's role as a Justice was not to impose a supposed emerging anti-racist morality but to interpret the Constitution as it was written.