Free Republic 2nd Qtr 2021 Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $83,610
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 95%!! Less than $4.4k to go!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by HandyDandy

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/18/2021 1:18:35 PM PDT · 406 of 408
    HandyDandy to woodpusher

    As much as you try to dismiss, make light of, and belittle the ruling, have you stopped to think about its impact in its own day and age? Einstein once said, “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” For a decision that ruled that Dred Scott had no jurisdiction and a decision that merely upheld the law, you surely must realize the Dred Scott case lead to the last final fracturing of the Nation as existing half free, half slave. Yes, you have certainly put forth a preponderance of verbiage all in the interest of pushing the Taney opinion into some little mouse hole. Sorry, the cat is already out of the bag. Too bad you weren’t around back then to tell everybody, “Nothing to see here, move along”.

  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/17/2021 2:11:50 PM PDT · 399 of 408
    HandyDandy to woodpusher
    Sorry, meant to say, “Yes, more than one of my magnificent seven wrote dissenting separate opinions.” Near as I can figure it, that leaves two dissenting opinions (the two Republicans). My math comes up with a 7-2 ruling. What does your math come up with? It would appear that you are not as good at math as you are at copying and pasting.
  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/17/2021 11:58:44 AM PDT · 398 of 408
    HandyDandy to woodpusher

    I found the above upon further wiki research. Sorry,It didn’t post as planned. The names were supposed to be hotlinks that led to each of their opinions. But I think this must be what you are talking about. Yes, more than one of my magnificent seven wrote dissenting opinions. Why didn’t you just say so instead of behaving like the pigeon on the chess board. Still and all, the final decision was 7-2. Do you deny that?

  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/17/2021 11:49:15 AM PDT · 397 of 408
    HandyDandy to woodpusher

    Court Documents
    Case Syllabus
    Opinion of the Court
    Concurring Opinions
    Dissenting Opinions
    Separate Opinions

  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/16/2021 9:06:20 PM PDT · 393 of 408
    HandyDandy to woodpusher
    ”That is all you can give because you have been busted and you must make believe your big nothing has the substance of something. It is s[sic] shame you are incapable of discussing the actual content of the Dred Scott opinions because you have never read them and refuse to do so, deliberately choosing to remain ignorant.

    You prefer your Wikipedia bilge to the actual court opinions because your anonymous article says what you want to hear. You refuse to read and comment on the actual court opinions because they do not support either the drivel in Wikipedia, or your posts.”

    You assert that the final decision was 7-2, and you assert Justice Grier was one of your Magnificent Seven. Let us look at what Justice Grier wrote, in its entirety, and in all its splendor. It is brief enough so as not to tax your brain too much.

    I warned you about wallowing in the mire. You pounced on a simple factual statement which I posted to your good pal DL. You have since wasted your time building a giant strawman. You are just one more Lost Cause drama queen. All that is pertinent is what I stated in the first place. If you have problems with the wiki article, take it up with them. I could copy and paste innumerable sources other than Wiki. Everybody knows the final decision was 7-2. The only dissenters were McLean and Curtis (both Republicans). Here I leave just a brief synopsis from Encyclopedia Britannica:

    “Dred Scott decision, formally Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, ruled (7–2) that a slave (Dred Scott) who had resided in a free state and territory (where slavery was prohibited) was not thereby entitled to his freedom; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise (1820), which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30′, was unconstitutional. The decision added fuel to the sectional controversy and pushed the country closer to civil war.”

    Otherwise I am out of time for tonight. I could easily, by copy and paste, construct a post even longer than yours full of samples of quotes about the Taney decision and how bad it was. Are you defending Taney? You’d have to one lonely sack of excrement to do that. Let it go man. It’s history and history hasn’t treated it kindly. Quibble if you must.

  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/15/2021 4:34:51 PM PDT · 388 of 408
    HandyDandy to DiogenesLamp
    DisingenuousLamp: “Lincoln and the subsequent government threatened them with occupation, seizure of their land, their houses, their cattle, or anything else they felt like threatening them with, up to and including death.”

    Well, Lincoln had “passed away”, so......... He is only still alive in your head. I don’t think there was any such thing as “Lincoln and the subsequent government”. The person who played the biggest role in determining how the North treated the South after the war was the guy who put a bullet in Lincoln’s brain pan. That one shot had more impact on the South than any shot fired during the Civil War.

  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/15/2021 12:58:08 PM PDT · 371 of 408
    HandyDandy to woodpusher
    I want five opinions, of the nine filed, that support the nonsense claims of your anonymous Wikipedia source. Correct page citations from the official opinions in U.S. Reports would nice. Even Wikipedia's footnoted source, as I quoted from, shows the article to be full of crap“

    You seem to have no trouble using the cited sources of “my anonymous Wikipedia source”. Odd, that. Here’s more from the anonymous wiki article for your reading pleasure:

    “Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenting vote in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which declared racial segregation constitutional and created the concept of "separate but equal". In his dissent, Harlan wrote that the majority's opinion would "prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case".[44]

    Charles Evans Hughes, writing in 1927 on the Supreme Court's history, described Dred Scott v. Sandford as a "self-inflicted wound" from which the court would not recover for many years.[45][46][47]

    In a memo to Justice Robert H. Jackson in 1952, for whom he was clerking, on the subject of Brown v. Board of Education, the future Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that "Scott v. Sandford was the result of Taney's effort to protect slaveholders from legislative interference."[48]

    Justice Antonin Scalia made the comparison between Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Dred Scott in an effort to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

    Dred Scott ... rested upon the concept of "substantive due process" that the Court praises and employs today. Indeed, Dred Scott was very possibly the first application of substantive due process in the Supreme Court, the original precedent for... Roe v. Wade.[49]

    Scalia noted that the Dred Scott decision had been written and championed by Taney and left the justice's reputation irrevocably tarnished. Taney, who was attempting to end the disruptive question of the future of slavery, wrote a decision that "inflamed the national debate over slavery and deepened the divide that led ultimately to the Civil War".[50]”

    We could go on and on swapping other people’s quotes. But, to be perfectly honest, I have no disposition to re-argue the Dred Scott case with you (which you apparently want to do). The final decision was 7-2.

    Majority: Taney, joined by Wayne, Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Grier, Campbell Concurrence: Wayne
    Concurrence: Catron
    Concurrence: Daniel
    Concurrence: Nelson, joined by Grier
    Concurrence: Grier
    Concurrence: Campbell
    Dissent: McLean
    Dissent: Curtis

    And that’s all you’re getting from me. And it’s more than you deserve. There isn’t actually anything said by me that should bring on the inquisition by you to show you individual opinions from the case. Nothing I claimed leads to that line of questioning. I posted about Taney and the final court decision. Your head is stuck in the quagmire of the case. You are stealing the narrative. You are steering the conversation. You can’t see the forest for the trees. You know more and more about less and less. So, you stay in your own bovine excrement and stop trying to pull me into it. You want “opinions”? I’ll give you a second opinion: you are a pedant.

  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/14/2021 9:07:28 PM PDT · 345 of 408
    HandyDandy to DiogenesLamp

    DisingenuousLamp, now appearing as a low minded ignorant bigot.

  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/14/2021 8:56:45 PM PDT · 343 of 408
    HandyDandy to DiogenesLamp
    “You clearly take this business of getting history right more serious than most of us.DL.
  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/14/2021 8:46:04 PM PDT · 340 of 408
    HandyDandy to woodpusher
    Dude, just because you are bogged down in irrelevant case minutiae, doesn’t mean I have to follow you into the weeds. Let’s bring it to modern reality shall we? From the same link (perhaps you should read it again for the first time:

    “In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that black people "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States". Taney supported his ruling with an extended survey of American state and local laws from the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787 that purported to show that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery". Because the Court ruled that Scott was not an American citizen, he was also not a citizen of any state and, accordingly, could never establish the "diversity of citizenship" that Article III of the US Constitution requires for a US federal court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over a case.[3] After ruling on those issues surrounding Scott, Taney continued further and struck down the entire Missouri Compromise as a limitation on slavery that exceeded the US Congress's constitutional powers.”

    You want how many names? ...5? .....7? You can go look up all the names you want for yourself. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against Dred Scott. Read it and weep.

  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/14/2021 5:34:01 PM PDT · 332 of 408
    HandyDandy to DiogenesLamp; jeffersondem

    Who’s “he”?

  • Turns Out No One Is Buying Wheat Bread Because It Sucks

    06/14/2021 4:55:36 PM PDT · 110 of 128
    HandyDandy to Larry Lucido

    S’all good man.

  • The Novavax Covid Vaccine Is Real Competition for Pfizer and Moderna: No serious safety problems emerged in the Novavax study, works on newer strains

    06/14/2021 3:46:54 PM PDT · 19 of 40
    HandyDandy to SeekAndFind
    “.......combination of artificial proteins mimicking the virus’s characteristic spikes, with an additive to enhance antibody formation.”

    Thanks, but I think I’ll pass.

  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/14/2021 12:06:49 PM PDT · 319 of 408
    HandyDandy to woodpusher
    “I see a steaming turd.”

    Perhaps that is because you are full of BS. What is the old expression? “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b*llsh*t.”

  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/14/2021 11:36:22 AM PDT · 317 of 408
    HandyDandy to Nifster

    He’s nothing if not coy.

  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/14/2021 11:32:17 AM PDT · 316 of 408
    HandyDandy to woodpusher

    “Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.[3][4]”

    Can you see it now?

  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/13/2021 9:46:43 PM PDT · 308 of 408
    HandyDandy to HandyDandy

    *cause” = clause

  • Where does the COVID Vaccine end up? Not Where it Should Be

    06/13/2021 8:35:03 PM PDT · 149 of 153
    HandyDandy to Kaslin

    I wonder, when I hear of varying reactions across the board to the shot, if they are being given properly. I remember reading that the skin above the muscle must be pinched exactly right so that the needle will reach the muscle. If it is pinched too much, the experimental biological agent will end up somewhere else in the body.

  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/13/2021 7:54:04 PM PDT · 307 of 408
    HandyDandy to woodpusher

    Let me put it to you this way. Taney himself thought the decision would resolve the matter of Slavery once and for all. Right, he said that the case had no standing. The reason for that according to Taney, was that a black man had never been considered a citizen from the beginning, was not then and there a citizen, and could not ever be a citizen! And that was that. Do you see now how it is related to Article IV(not 2), section 2, clause 3? Are you trying to cover for Taney? That case is largely considered to be the worst decision in US history. Until Roe v Wade, IMHO. Remember too that Taney was Lincoln’s number one adversary. A side note: Taney, as Chief Justice of the “eminent tribunal” swore Abe into office, and then had to sit there and squirm as Lincoln ripped him a new one. Taney was one of the, named by Lincoln, slavery promoters mentioned in the House Divided speech, pre-election. I have maintained on these CW threads that the Dred Scott decision was the belligerent act that lead to the Civil War. Which makes the outcome of the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and then the 13th Amendment the official slow death of Article IV, section2, clause3. I see a thread from the “fugitive slave cause”, to the Fugitive Slave Act, to the Compromise of 1850, to the Dred Scott decision and through the Civil War and Lincoln. Can you see it?

  • We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

    06/13/2021 7:04:35 PM PDT · 300 of 408
    HandyDandy to Nifster

    Were it not for snark, he’d have nothing.