[yankeedame]

I hope that you are either making a bad joke or you are completly ignorant of what it was that Taney ruled.

Which is it?

(best Jewish mother accent): What? This is a choice?

[Sherman Logan]

Do you believe in the sanctities (sic) right of private property in human beings?

[Ditto]

(best Jewish mother accent): What? This is a choice?

(best Jewish father accent); Are your ears dirty?

Yes, it's a choice. Were you joking or do think Taney was correct in his constitutional reasoning?

Here's the like to his opinion as a starting point in case you have never read it.

If you were not joking (badly) I can only assume that you think Taney was correct and not motivated by politics or personal feelings.

BTW... here's a link to one of the dissenting opinions in case you need some help in understanding how Taney took judicial activism to a new level completly without regard to the word or intent of the constitution, or long established states rights that pre dated the constitution. Along with the Fugitive Slave Act, Scott was the biggest assault on States Rights that had ever occurred until that point in our history.

Frankly, I have never seen anyone defend the Scott decision. It was over the top judicial activism in any era. I'm amazed anyone would defend it, least of all someone on a Conservative forum.