Dred Scott decision still haunts country, professor says (Mega Barf Alert)

Austin American Statesman ^ | 3/31/06 | Paul Thissen

[7thson]

I have not read this entire article but I think it is a good idea to continually discuss this case. Why? Because it can be tied into so many other recent decisions that are also wrong. Abortion, for one. Eniment Domain, for another. It can be explained that political decisions and feelings get in the way of interpreting the Constitution and following the law.

[PeaRidge]

That bait won't swim.

[x]

Your usual tactic of setting up a straw man conclusion, putting out an all points bulletin to your buddies, accusing someone of drawing a conclusion that you concoct, and then feigning extreme surprise and condemnation, and yes, even personal abuse to try to make a point.

Is that what I do? Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, who is the blithering idiot?

Not me. Why do you ask?

Roger Taney was the driving force behind the Dred Scott decision. He wrote the "majority opinion" but from what I gather, each judge wrote his own opinion -- a sign that Taney didn't speak for everyone on the court.

Taney was over eighty in 1860, and he couldn't last forever on all the legal points involved. A Republican President would soon enough have the chance to appoint a Republican Chief Justice. As it was most of the court had been replaced due to deaths and resignations after 16 if not 8 years. There was the possibility to create new seats on the court and accelerate the change (which in fact Congress did do in 1863 and 1869).

New Justices wouldn't have been bound to Taney's decision, which was indeed quite radical (apparently, it was only the second time in history that the high court had set aside an act of Congress). So it just isn't true that the Corwin Amendment would have left Dred Scott -- a bad, pro-slavery decision -- permanently in effect.

As it was, it was going to be awfully difficult to enforce Dred Scott v. Sanford when something like half the country disagreed with it, but it wouldn't remain on the books forever. Then as now, Democrats had cause to fear that Republicans would appoint good judges to replace their bad ones.

[x]

He wrote the "majority opinion" but from what I gather, each judge wrote his own opinion -- a sign that Taney didn't speak for everyone on the court.

Taney was over eighty in 1860, and he couldn't last forever on all the legal points involved.

That last phrase "on all the legal points involved" should end the previous sentence "Taney didn't speak for everyone on the court". Whatever the legal points involved, Taney wasn't going to live forever.

[Wolfstar]

But how do the blacks feel about losing their leading minority status to the Mexicans?

They haven't quite figured it out, yet.

[texan75010]

"Why are black people so angry?"

The color of their skin is becoming less and less relevant, therefore, they have less and less power.

Politicians are going after white and brown voters.
Employers are going after brown faces to fill their minority quotas.

The blacks who relied on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character to open doors are finding more and more of those doors closed.

Sucks to be #2 don't it.