[jordan8]

Dred Scott was property, and the decision was correct. People who think Dred Scott was a bad decision want the Court to legislate from the bench, which ironically in light of this column, is exactly what they did in Roe v. Wade.

[DMZFrank]

As bad as Dred Scott was, it at least had a shred of constitutional reasoning. Roe has ABSOLUTELY NONE.

[TBP]

Scott was not considered property in Illinois, but a free citizen. If you hold that Scott was to be considered property wherever he went, then do you also hold that under the "full faith and credit" clause, all states must recognize a gay couple "married" in Massachusetts as "married"? Or do states' rights hold here? And if they do, why wouldn't they hold in the case of a slave in a state that does not recognize slavery?