Replies

[Dr. Franklin #122] Chief Justice Taney had died in 1864, and Justice John Archibald Campbell, a Southerner born in GA, quit after secession. Neither is likely to have agreed with Lincoln appointed CJ Chase on that point,
[woodpusher #149 ] Utterly irrelevant.
[Dr. Franklin #167] Only to you. As usual, you refuse to consider the argument.

I have carefully considered that at the time of Texas v. White Chief Justice Taney had died. Carefully considered, this is still irrelevant to Texas v. White.

I have carefully considered that Justice Campbell resigned from the Court after secession and that Taney and Archibald may not have agreed with CJ Chase. Carefully considered, it is still irrelevant. Former justices and dead justices are not on the Court. Whatever you imagine they would have done is irrelevant. If you can find their dissenting opinions, provide a link and quote.

Had Taney's dead body have been there, it would not have voted. Had Campbell remained on the court and cast a dissenting vote, it would have changed nothing. During the war, the Court was expanded to 10 justices so Lincoln could appoint 5. Had they needed more insurance, Congress could have made it 11 or 12 justices.

When they desired to prevent an adverse decision, Congress just took away the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. See Ex parte McCardle.

Rewriting or reimagining history is not a legal argument.

I have carefully considered that at the time of Texas v. White Chief Justice Taney had died. Carefully considered, this is still irrelevant to Texas v. White. ... Had Taney's dead body have been there, it would not have voted. Had Campbell remained on the court and cast a dissenting vote, it would have changed nothing. During the war, the Court was expanded to 10 justices so Lincoln could appoint 5. Had they needed more insurance, Congress could have made it 11 or 12 justices.

And you again refuse to acknowledge that personnel on the court determines how it rules, and what precedents it recognizes as binding, and which are overruled. Warren Court precedents were not favored under the Rhenquist Court, etc.

Rewriting or reimagining history is not a legal argument.

In the case of Texas v. White , reimagining history is exactly what CJ Chase did. His opinion was counterfactual, and he did nothing to end the Reconstruction laws, or even signal they were unconstitutional, that by the plain meaning of his opinion had deprived sovereign states and their citizens of constitutionally mandated representation in the Congress.