Okay. I'll ask you (since the other guy won't answer), what was "bad" about it? Is that you just didn't like the ends, or do you think there was something wrong with the means (Taney's et al. reasoning). It's not for the courts to go changing the law, even if the law is flawed. This is up to the Congress, or the States if it involves Constitutional change.
ML/NJ
I shall attempt to be intellectually honest, while admitting that yes I do not like the Dred Scott decision.
I believe that you are correct when you say that the Supreme Court should not legislate from the bench, even to end as heinous an institution has slavery. To illustrate, even Abraham Lincoln recognized that he had no constitutional authority to end slavery in the free states where he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
My objection to the Dred Scott decision rests on what I feel as a too cursory dismissal of Dred Scott's claim to have been a resident of a free state that offered him the protections granted by that state to Illinois citizens. It would seem to be preservative of states rights to protect the state of Illinois right to determine the status of its citizens.
I fully accept that the only constitutional way to end slavery was to adopt the 13th amendment.