Prometheus 6

Dubya's Dred Scott comment the other day struck everyone else as strangely as it did me. I've discovered it struck my political interpretational biases right between the eyes.

Between Shanikka's comment the other day and this from Mark via email

If I recall my grad school days correctly, Taney was an *activist*, not a *strict constructionist* because the Court could have easily and with precedent declined to hear the case on technical grounds or remanded Dred Scott back to lower courts.

Instead Taney elected to write the most sweeping opinion imaginable with the intent of invalidating the Missouri compromise - a tresspass on the legislative power of Congress which has the *sole authority* under the Constitution to determine the conditions or requirements for admission of states to the Union. The Court had no Constitutional basis to overrule the Missouri Compromise and later in the 19th century the Congress attached unusual requirements to Utah's admission. If you can constitutionally ban polygamy as the price of admission to the Union you can ban slavery as well.

Taney also, if I recall correctly, had such an view prior to hearing oral arguments in the case which he recorded in a diary or letter - a breach of judicial ethics - but that I would need to check with a field specialist on that one.

I've got some good new information.

But on the topic of my biases. Me, Black guy, hears "Dred Scott" and it's suddenly a discussion of slavery, racism, and an interpretation of the Constitution. Intellectual stuff.

I forgot that

• Every word George Bush says is focused on appealing to his base
• George Bush and the Neocons are extremists. I needed to apply something I myself pointed out…that he would point at something along the general path to his true goals and claim that half-way point is his destination, confident that momentum would carry him all the way home
• The Vision Thing is NOT about being intellectual

So when Cyndy from MouseMusings dropped this in the comments:

Here is another perspective on the Dred Scott reference. I just saw this before coming here, quite interesting how little code-words work.

…which led to this:

Dred Scott = Roe v. Wade

Some people seem to be a bit boggled
by Bush's Dred Scott remark last night. It wasn't about racism or
slavery, or just Bush's natural incoherence. Here's what Bush actually
said:

If elected to another term, I promise that I will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Bush couldn't say that in plain language, because it would freak out
every moderate swing voter in the country, but he can say it in code,
to make sure that his base will turn out for him. Anti-choice advocates
have been comparing Roe v. Wade with Dred Scott v. Sandford for some
time now. There is a constant drumbeat on the religious right to
compare the contemporary culture war over abortion with the 19th
century fight over slavery, with the anti-choicers cast in the role of
the abolitionists.

Don't believe me? Here.

Further, Bush has to describe Dred Scott as about wrongheaded
personal beliefs, rather than a fairly constricted constitutional
interpretation because he needs to paint Roe v. Wade the same way, and
he wants "strict constructionists" in the Supreme Court, so he can't
really talk about the actual rationale used in Dred Scott.

I can't emphasize enough how important this is, and how much it needs to be publicized.

…which is supported here and here I have to admit all that blew right past me.