Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScott v. Sanford apparently is a viable precedent for the current Supreme Court
You know, the Dred Scott case you may recall from middle school history class. A masterpiece in "originalist" thinking. Consider this little nugget from the decision:
A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.....
The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted.
When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.....
The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted.
That's some brilliant legal minds at work there! Same kind of rationale is at work in the majority's DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMENS HEALTH ORGANIZATION reasoning. Consider for instance this little passage:
In interpreting what is meant by liberty, the Court must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what the Fourteenth Amendment protects with the Courts own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. For this reason, the Court has been reluctant to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125
Sounds really familiar. Makes me think this court is possessed of the spirit of the late Justice Tanney who used the constitution as a crutch for saying things like all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. I truly think the members of this court are of a mind that if they were in Taney's position, they would come to the same conclusions.
Now if it were me and I was trying to be an originalist I would look to something like the Declaration of Independence instead of the guy who presided over witch trials in the 17th Century. THAT might lead you to a conclusion like when it talks about "we hold these truths to be self-evident" it might apply to a concept like a woman has a fundamental right to control over her own body, but that's just me.
But don't be surprised when a "no abortion" state passes a law banning interstate travel for the purpose of obtaining an abortion and and a state like Texas is suing New Jersey or Maryland for extradition of a pregnant woman. I see this court upholding the Texas law...and the decision will sound an awful lot like Dred Scott.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 601 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (9)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scott v. Sanford apparently is a viable precedent for the current Supreme Court (Original Post)
Dread Pirate Roberts
Jun 2022
OP
Cheezoholic
(1,967 posts)1. Justice Taney's court was an abomination
And good 'ol Abe and the Republicans (The liberal party of the time) gave him a good shot right up the wazoo. We need to give Joe and the Dems the same opportunity in Nov., I have no doubt they would ruthlessly take full advantage. it's more than Roe as you said. There is an opportunity right now to bury these pricks for the next decade..