So... Bush Says He Won't Pick Justices Who Support DRED SCOTT

[liberalpragmatist]

Okay. That does it for me. I completely trust whoever he's putting up for the Supreme Court, b/c at least they don't support slavery.

Anyway, thought I'd post this on THIS internet, as opposed to the other one.

[BattyDem]

1. The other one's a bit slow tonight anyway.

:evilgrin:

[Bongo Prophet]

2. It was a brave political move

seeing as how he will alienate his freeper base.

They had such hopes for burning W's and such , as they Went back...back...back to the good ole days. Ohhhhhhhhhh, I WWWish I WWWas in da land o'cotton.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

3. Bernie Ward is talking about this right now on his radio show

He's saying that the one monent in the debate that really shocked him was Bush's mention of Dred Scott. First, he says it was a complete non sequitur, mentioning this 150 year old case. Moreover, he said that Dred Scott is probably the worst Supreme Court case of all time, even worse than the Japanese internment case of Korematsu.

Bernie says that Dred Scott is an example of conservaive strict constructivism, the very type of decision Bush said he supported. The Supreme Court was strictly interpreting the law at the time as to slave ownership. Ward says that he needs to come up with a new word besides "stupid" to describe Bush, because the Scott decision completely contradicted the entire point of Bush's mention of the Dred Scott case and the discussion of strict constructivist judges.

[MsUnderstood]

5. my history is a little shaky

But I'm pretty sure that the constitution does allow slavery, until the amendments squashed that little social experiment.


And if you are trying NOT to interpret the Constitution, then don't force kids to say UNDER GOD, when the constitution says seperation of churce (GOD) and state (pledge of allegieance).

[jacksonian]

4. plus how does a strict reading of the constitution

get "under God" into the pledge of allegiance?