If one actually reads the decision and understands the Constitution of the United States at the time of the decision, it is a legally solid decision. Remember, it was not until 1865 did the Congress pass the 13th Amendment.
Roe v Wade got a pretty substantial stink to it.
It’s Taney,not Tanney.
.
One thing about this decision, it listed what rights citizens of the US had.
Dred Scott vs Sanford.
What the SCOTUS thought about gun control in the pre Civil War era.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;
and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.
"there is no Constitutionally legal path for Scott or any slave to become a U.S. Citizen"
About that, I think he is wrong. Manumitted slaves did become citizens in several states. In those days, the states could make anyone a citizen if they so wished.
Tanney was a nasty little man.