I am unconcerned with "saving face."
Wonderful. Then perhaps you could comment about my post #347:
--- Good grief; - you're defending Dred Scott.
Until it was overturned, this was the law.
Keep on begging that morally repugnant question, Lucky...
That is the whole issue here.
Scott is a USSC opinion that said blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."
Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."
[Scott] was not "repugnant" to the Constitution until it was overturned. (And no I wasn't defending it, just pointing out the fallacy in your reasoning).
Gotta love the way you can find an [unspecified] fallacy in my reasoning at the same time you imagine you're not defending the indefensible.
The authoritarian mind works in mysterious ways..
-347-