When I say "the Court must respect the structure of government," that means that activist justices must not legislate from the bench. Legislating is left to the Congress. And Congress is an institution which legislates through the development of majorities.
We'll see why you are "laughing" with your next comment:
"[Fehrenbacher's book] ... attempts to discredit a very sound legal decision."
Ring the bells and throw the confetti. Folk's, 4ConservativeJustices wins the "stupidest comment on the thread" award! Even the most ardent racists don't call the Dred Scott decision "a very sound legal decision." Before I will take any more of your comments seriously concerning the DS decision, I suggest you either (1) actually read the book in question, or (2) cite your references as to DS's "soundness."
"Please provide DOCUMENTATION from the 6 justices siding with Chief Justice Taney that the holding in the decision had been changed."
Why would the "co-conspirators" care? The documentation exists in the National Archives, which contain two sets of printer's proofs, demostrating Taney's substantial changes. (Supreme Court Records, RG 267, Opinion in Appellate Cases, Box no. 52, National Archives)
What a maroon!
You would be happy reserving new territories ONLY for Democrats? The gist of the decision is that all members of the union have equal rights to the territories. Seven justices agreed. Sorry if you have a problem with that.
Fallacy, and unfair. You are tarring them just for agreeing with Taney.
Your snark doesn't address the merits.