- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 9,869
- Reaction score
- 3,495
- Location
- Los Angeles area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
If there is any emotional ranting here, as its "FFS" might suggest, it is your own. It's disappointing to see that on what is supposed to be a forum devoted to real debate.
Your assertion that Dred Scott v. Sandford is the "worst ruling ever according to basically every legal scholar" is basically a misstatement of fact. It's a long, complex decision, but most constitutional scholars I've seen discuss it agree that for the most part, Chief Justice Taney's legal reasoning is pretty sound. The big problem with the decision was that by making any compromise about slavery almost impossible, it helped make the Civil War inevitable.
I'll leave it to others here to compare your understanding of the details of the Dred Scott case with President Lincoln's, and then decide how much weight to give your assertion that his view of how the decision should be treated was "senseless." Certainly the Supreme Court can't enforce its decisions, as Justice Scalia, quoting Alexander Hamilton on that issue, pointed out in his dissenting opinion in Obergefell. States are free to ignore a decision, particularly if the President declines to enforce it.
I doubt that your opinion of what Chief Justice Moore thinks of Dred Scott v. Sandford is informed by any facts. It seems instead to be inspired by hatred of his views. Dred Scott is a very interesting case, not least because quite a few constitutional scholars believe it marks the very first appearance of the notorious doctrine that is now called "substantive due process."
I'm sure you know that Obergefell was a substantive due process decision. No doubt you also know about Lochner, probably the best-known SDP decision ever, and therefore understand why Chief Justice Roberts compared the majority decision in Obergefell to Lochner. He might have added Roe v. Wade, another notorious SDP turkey. Roe is so bad even Justice Ginsburg has criticized it, and the Court came close to overruling it in Casey in 1992. In Casey, the Court was no longer willing to support the majority's invention in Roe that abortion is a fundamental right located in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Due Process Clause is not some magic bag which strident minorities and their backers may dip into whenever they like, and--presto!--pull out a brand-new "right" which suits them, even though it nullifies the votes of majorities in many states. That process is deeply undemocratic--a direct attack on the principle of self-rule on which this country was founded. However much the fact may frustrate statists, the Fourteenth Amendment did not repeal the Tenth.
Last edited:
