The Dred-Scott case gets a bad rap as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history. However, it was correct constitutionally, and as abominable as it may be from a MORAL perspective, it was the only correct action the Court could take using the document as it existed at that time. Fixing the flaws in the Constitution is the job of the Congress (and the People), not the Supreme Court.
The Court, in that case, actually did what Supreme Courts are supposed to do. They used the CONSTITUTION, as it was constructed at the time, to reach their decision. Their decisions pointed out some MAJOR flaws in the original document which, after much debate, years of strife and a war, was legally amended to fix the defects.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to use moral arguments or “feelings” in their rulings. They are supposed to rule on the constitutionality of the law.
There is and always has been, a legislative procedure which can be followed to amend the constitution. It was never intended to be changed by judicial fiat.
Hardly. Dred Scott is a decision that never should have been made. When Chief Justice Taney ruled that blacks were not, and could never be U.S. citizens then that removed the jurisdiction of the court completely and Taney should have gone no further. Continuing as he did was the worst form of legislating from the bench.