[Restorer]

Mr. Bush: "I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words under God in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. "Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says."

I'm missing something here again. Are the Democrats now trying to say that the Dred Scott decision was correct?

[Prophet in the Wilderess]

To bad the SHEEPLE would just check the FACTS of history, and look and see, that YES !! it's true, that the Democrats were the ones who wanted to disenfranchise the blacks in the south and kept them from voting in the south after ABE freed them.
Go check it our yourself.
It was the Republican party who were the ones who wanted to free the slaves , but, the Democrats wanted to keep them as slaves.
I just can't understand, why they chose to pick the party ( DEMOCRATS ) who wanted to keep them as slaves.
Why can't they see, and open there eyes to the FACTS OF HISTORY.
The ( LIE ) of, the " REPUBLICAN PARTY is the party of the rich " line has been played over & over 7 and over. Why can't people look and see, they are the party ( REPUBLICANS ) who want ALL PEOPLE TO GET AHEAD, and not just for the rich.
THE REPUBLICANS WERE THE ONES WHO FREED THE SLAVES IN THE SOUTH IN THE CIVAL WAR, with ABE , not the DEMOCRATS.
How long will the Afro Americans believe the lie of the DEMOCRATS ? and keep pulling the wool over the Afro Americans eyes ?

[capitan_refugio]

Stoat - thanks for posting this article.

It would be interesting to hear what the "Confederate Cabal" has to say about this? They seem to think the Dred Scott v Sandford (sic) was fine example of strict constitutional construction. And they don't like anything coming out of the Claremont Institute.

[TexConfederate1861]

At the TIME, The "Dred Scott" decision was correct, because slavery was protected under the Constitution.

Why would Bush would use that as a reference?

Not applicable.

(Ducking for the "Brigade" attack)

[Redleg Duke]

Liberals cannot stand the fact that President Bush isn't as stupid as they wish he was. Anytime that he makes a statement showing intellectual understanding, they will move heaven and earth to prove that "black is white and white is black" to support their mindset that he is an intellectual lightweight.

In reality, the liberal media and their slobbering readers/listeners comprise the vast preponderance of the intellectual lightweights in the world. They are convinced of their "oh-so intelligent" status that they cannot see their own mental nakedness!

[stainlessbanner]

bttt

[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.

[Fiddlstix]

Note to Susan Esterich:

Get A Life!

[A Jovial Cad]

That was a fine moment in the last debate--I was very proud of Bush for having the courage to bring that up. The Dred Scott decision was doubly tragic in that it was of the same kind of legal "reasoning" that later gave us Roe v. Wade.

[DannyTN]

"Kerry appears to be precise in his obscurantism, while Bush is often obscure in articulating the clarity of his principles. "