Bush Judges Rightly on Dred Scott

The Claremont Institute ^ | October 9, 2004 | Ken Masugi

[Stoat]

Bush Judges Rightly on Dred Scott

 

Democratic politico Susan Estrich on television and the LA Times (see the last paragraph) both went after Bush for his comments on Dred Scott, in response to his answer about whom he would pick for the Supreme Court. But Bush was in fact right in using the Dred Scott case as an example of bad judging and a bad reading of the Constitution.

 

Like the justice he has expressed admiration for, Clarence Thomas, Bush believes that the Declaration’s “principle of inherent equality … underlies and infuses our Constitution.” Bush’s understanding differs from that of not only Chief Justice Taney but most contemporary legal and historical scholars. He does have one significant ally though—Abraham Lincoln.

 

While the ownership of slaves is certainly implied in the original Constitution, Chief Justice Roger Taney went far beyond reasonable interpretation when he argued that the Declaration of Independence had no regard for the humanity of black people, who “were never thought of or spoken of except as property.” Because Taney misunderstood the radicalism of the Declaration, he could not understand the Constitution. Lincoln, however, rejected Taney’s bad history and regarded the Declaration’s equality principle as a “standard maxim of free society.”

 

Contrast this with Kerry’s preposterous endorsement of the Potter Stewart test of judicial craftsmanship, which is no more useful than that justice’s definition of pornography. Kerry appears to be precise in his obscurantism, while Bush is often obscure in articulating the clarity of his principles.
 

[Gianni]

Jaffa and others at the Claremont Group (which includes Claremont McKenna College, Pomona College, Claremont Graduate University, Scripps College, Harvey Mudd College, Pitzer College, and the Keck Graduate Institute) are firm believers, like Lincoln, in the "founding principles" of the nation, some of which are spelled out in the Declaration of Independence (i.e "all men are created equal," all are entitled by their humanity to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," etc). The Cabal doesn't like the concept.

"The Cabal" prefers that legal decisions be based on law.

El Capitan thinks that court rulings should be based on feel-good channelling of Ms Cleo. They rely on things like "founding principles" which are nowhere codified in any legally binding compact, treaty, or law; they claim that these uncodified "principles" carry the weight of law because of some arbitrarily created and tangential relationship to something that is legally binding. From there, we have the notion that a court can rely on something such as the DoI, or the defunct AofC.

The argument carries only the weight of the bayonet used to enforce it. Legally and logically it fails in every respect.

Tell us, Oh Capitan my Capitan, what should the ruling have been in Scott?

[Non-Sequitur]

Now, just what the hell was the point you were trying to make with your out-of-context quote?

[Gianni]

Out of context? Perhaps the dust from the combines is getting to you?

The quote evidences that Taney's ruling is not at all out of bed with Lincoln's understanding. Interesting that Lincoln would go on to rail against the decision as a means of achieving political points, hammering home a wedge into an already deeply divided country.

Maybe you can at least see the folly in all of the 'holier than thou' crapola being dished out by the St Abe crew.

[Non-Sequitur]

Out of context? Perhaps the dust from the combines is getting to you?

Yeah, out of context. Lincoln was not saying that the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution applied inly to whites, regardless of what you imply.

The quote evidences that Taney's ruling is not at all out of bed with Lincoln's understanding. Interesting that Lincoln would go on to rail against the decision as a means of achieving political points, hammering home a wedge into an already deeply divided country.

Oh bullshit. In the first place this speech was given in 1854, three years before Scott v Sandford. In the second place Taney ruled that blacks were not due any Constitutional protections, even citizenship. That is totally foreign to what Lincoln was saying here. Lincoln was acknowledging that slavery was legal and tolerated, but that the time would come when a decision on the future of slavery would have to be made. AND Lincoln believed that the same rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence applied to all, white and black. An idea that would have given Taney apoplexy.

Maybe you can at least see the folly in all of the 'holier than thou' crapola being dished out by the St Abe crew.

No, I'm afraid that it's being lost in all the hypocrisy of the Lincoln loathers and their southron hero worship.

[Gianni]

In the first place this speech was given in 1854, three years before Scott v Sandford.

This speech was not in response to Scott, nor did I say it was.

So, rather than pick this arpart over a series of 5000 posts, just tell me which piece of relevent context acts as modifier on the phrase, "white man's charter of freedom."

[Non-Sequitur]

This speech was not in response to Scott, nor did I say it was.

So when you said, "Interesting that Lincoln would go on to rail against the decision as a means of achieving political points, hammering home a wedge into an already deeply divided country" just what speech did you mean?

[Gianni]

This is the sort of dishonest horse-crap I've come to expect from you. Are you gonna say that Lincoln was now a supporter of the Scott decision? Are you going to claim that Lincoln never spoke about it? That he kept his opinion on the case a deeply held secret? That he didn't use it to score political points?

Fine. I'm glad that you finally agree that Lincoln was a stone-cold racist, even if your reasons for believing so are incorrect.

No answer for my question?

Which piece of relevent context acts to modify the phrase, "white man's charter of freedom?"

[Non-Sequitur]

This is the sort of dishonest horse-crap I've come to expect from you. Are you gonna say that Lincoln was now a supporter of the Scott decision? Are you going to claim that Lincoln never spoke about it? That he kept his opinion on the case a deeply held secret? That he didn't use it to score political points?

Well, if I were I wouldn't use a speech Lincoln gave three years before the court decision as evidence of how Lincoln felt about the case.

[Non-Sequitur]

Which piece of relevent context acts to modify the phrase, "white man's charter of freedom?"

"Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon; and whoever holds to the one, must despise the other."

[Gianni]

That he was opposed to slavery does not seem (necessarily) to modify his views on the DoI. His involvement in colonization schemes seems to undermine any inclinations he may have had with repsect to simply extending the principles of the DoI to all. The manner in which he discussed 'equality' and amalgamation of the races sheds considerable light on his views as well.

Many excuse this as part of the 'enigma' of Lincoln. I wonder that people continue to believe that any politician can not be so described. The remainder of them just don't receive the kid-gloves treatment applied in this one case. We call them slimy, the other saintly. Would we describe Kerry as an 'enigma' since he voted for the 88mil before he voted against it? When faced with it in our time, we recognize it as pandering. It gives us little insight into his personal inclinations.

[Gianni]

Well, if I were I wouldn't use a speech Lincoln gave three years before the court decision as evidence of how Lincoln felt about the case.

Non, you're attempting to divert.

The speech does not give us evidence concerning how Lincoln felt about the case, it gives us insight concerning how Lincoln felt about the DoI and the United States government. It appears as though in his view, it was of white people, for white people.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Lincoln, however, rejected Taney’s bad history and regarded the Declaration’s equality principle as a “standard maxim of free society.”

Slavery was constitutional. The Founders wanted it to be constitutional. And besides, we aren't ruled by the Declaration of Independence.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I think Bush was fed the line by an idiot staffer. I think a discussion with Bush on SCOTUS cases on slavery would be a brief one indeed.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Exactly. Well said.

[Fiddlstix]

Note to Susan Esterich:

Get A Life!

[GraniteStateConservative]

Well, he probably didn't, so what we got was probably about the best we could get.

[Non-Sequitur]

His involvement in colonization schemes seems to undermine any inclinations he may have had with repsect to simply extending the principles of the DoI to all.

Nonsense. I can point you to other quote where Lincoln clearly states his beliefs that the God given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are color-blind and that they apply to the white man as well as the black. I cannot think of a single instance where Lincoln states that the precipts of the Declaration of Independence were for whites alone. And your claim that his support of colonization are an indication is ridiculous. Sure Lincoln supported colonization, voluntary colonization. He supported it much of his adult life, thousands did in the U.S. including such men as John Breckenridge and Robert Lee. But support for that had nothing to do with Lincoln's belief that a free black man was due the same Constitutional rights as a white.

Many excuse this as part of the 'enigma' of Lincoln.

Excuse what? That Lincoln, judged by today's standards, would be considered racist? Name me a single person of the period who would NOT be considered racist. Lincoln's beliefs for the times were very enlightened, almost radical. He was strongly opposed to slavery, unlike the southern leaders. He believed that in many ways the black man was the equal of a white man, unlike the southern leaders. There is nothing slimy or saintly about Lincoln, to anyone who takes a serious look at the man. The only slimy activities around here are on the part of people like you who will look at Lincoln and Lincoln alone, condemn Lincoln and Lincoln alone for actions that you ignore in others. You want to hold Lincoln up to an impossible standard, and give everyone else a free ride.

[Non-Sequitur]

The speech does not give us evidence concerning how Lincoln felt about the case...

Then why did you say it did?

...it gives us insight concerning how Lincoln felt about the DoI and the United States government. It appears as though in his view, it was of white people, for white people.

Only if you ignore the speech as a whole and only look for those parts that fit your agenda. If Lincoln were concerned only with white men then why make a speech that start to finish, front to back is a condemnation of slavery?