Dred Scott not = abortion!! It is code for keeping discrimination.

[PretzelWarrior]

Near the Old Courthouse in St. Louis where the Dred Scott case was tried (I just stopped in there again this summer)...Bush dragged out the Dred Scott case for one reason and one reason only--to get his Southern voters thinking that in Bush's mind it is still up for debate.

The great thing about this is no one can pin it on BUsh but it will also give rise to many racists' conclusion that slavery is our solution to poor economy, job outsourcing, and need for more warm bodies in Iraq.

This is the meme to put forward. Dred Scott was brought up because Bush is employing his southern strategy in the school of Trent Lott and the rest of the GOP Klan.

[shoopnyc123]

1. At what point in the debate was that mentioned by him...

...I want to look at it again

[shoopnyc123]

2. Sorry just found it in the transcript....

...at C Span

[shoopnyc123]

3. Here...

MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

BUSH: I'm not telling.

(LAUGHTER)

I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.

(LAUGHTER)

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

Thank you.

[jimshoes]

4. This one line puzzles me some,

"That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America."

What couldn't he bring himself to say after "we're all..."? We're all what? He couldn't bring himself to say we're all equal? It's obvious he believes he's more equal than the rest of us, but did he have a sudden case of conscience and couldn't lie just then? The man is so maddeningly ineloquent. It will take scholars decades to decipher the meaning behind his ramblings once he's just a very bad memory come January.

[liberalcanuck]

6. That part of his statement puzzles me also. It's almost as if he couldn't

remember or wasn't quite sure what the word was after paraphrasing "...all men are created equal...".


As Kerry and Edwards say, "America can do better."

[jdj]

14. because that phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence

Not the Constitution, and he caught himself just in time.

For once.

It's F*cking hideous that he phrased it this way, a freaking "personal opinion"??????????WTF

Boy those strategists have outdone themselves this time. Thanks, geedubya, for validating the KKK during a presidential debate.

[markus]

5. That's not what National Right to Life thinks

Here's why its code for abortion in their view. And suggesting Dred Scott was wrong is not going to win over any neo-Confederates. Hell, they have those folks body-and-soul anyway.

http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL699/slave.html

[msanthrope]

7. Dred is about abortion-----Dred is overturned by the 14th

amendment. Overruled by statute. Also, overruled, or more correctly, voided, the Missouri Compromise (3/5ths)

The key part of the 14th is the definition of personhood---blacks/slaves are now people, as defined by law.

In the dissents of Casey, and Roe, you can read how Scalia and Rhenquist believe that the extention of personhood to the fetus, under the 14th amendment is the way to end abortion.

Problem is, there's almost no case law that supports giving the fetus "personhood". So the rightwing is busy trying to enact all sorts of protection legislation, hoping to work backwards (gestation-wise), and create a body of case law that federalist judges can begin to refer to--this "partial birth abortion", and the "Laci Peterson" fetal protection act.

So, when NARAL starts talking about the "erosion of Roe", they ain't kiddin'.

[TrogL]

8. They're working on it

There was a case about pregnant woman killed in a car accident that used that sort of language.

[hyphenate]

9. I think he just made a huge stupid mistake

I think he was invoking another case, but since he's stupid anyhow, couldn't remember which one he was supposed to be talking about.

[Richard D]

10. Just google

"dred scott abortion" (without the quotes) and see what comes up.

[neebob]

12. Well, isn't that interesting.

Here's an instance where I'm inclined to agree he's speaking in code. See, I thought he was just bringing up something he remembered from school as an example, for lack of something more current and appropriate.

But come to find out, all these anti-abortion people think the reasoning in Dred Scott and Roe is identical. And I only looked at one of the 7,190 pages that came up when I googled per acudoc's suggestion. Google on "dred scott" and "roe v wade" as phrases, and you still get over 4,000 pages.

[Richard D]

11. Just google

"dred scott abortion" (without the quotes) and see what comes up.

[neebob]

13. Actually, after taking acudoc's suggestion and googling,

I think Dred Scott not = "I will nominate a Supreme Court justice who's willing to overturn Roe v. Wade."