[buridan]

"Actually, the Scott case was . . . decided as conservatives want cases to be decided."

Not so. Taney's opinion was bad originalism. It ignored the clear record that some blacks were citizens at the of the founding. It gave a preposterous reading of the "territories clause" and of Congress' power to legislate for territories acquired after the Constitution went into effect. It went out of its way to declare the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. It may even have initiated the "substantive due process" idea that has born fruit in Roe v. Wade. Lincoln's "Cooper Union" address utterly destroys part of the reasoning.

[William Terrell]

The current law, custom and constitutional provisions providing for citizenship were accurate, and not a matter of opinion and interpretation. Maybe some of the other legal points brought up in the case were overanalysed, but the landmark rulings were fact, and based on the federal effect on all the states, not just one that provided state citizenship to blacks.

All expressed opinions of that case were and are based on an emotional reaction to the harsh status of the blacks in America at that time, not hard law. Hard law is what we conservatives want the SC to use.