Was the Dred Scott reference code for Roe v. Wade?

Thomas wrote:

princesspupule --

That sounds reasonable to me, and I would be comforted if Bush didn't have this persistent record of first stating fairly sensible principles, then doing the opposite in practice.

But he didn't answer whether or not he wanted to see Roe v. Wade overturned, simply that he would have no "litmus test" for any Supreme Court appointee. Shouldn't the right of choice remain a "constitutional right" that should be defended by anyone aspiring to the high court?

princesspupule wrote:

Here's what was said about this during debate #3:

Quote:

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, I want to go back to something Senator Kerry said earlier tonight and ask a follow-up of my own. He said -- and this will be a new question to you -- he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I'd ask you directly, would you like to?

BUSH: What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test.

Despite his remarks in the third debate, Bush quite clearly has a litmus test for judges: he outlined it in the second debate:

Quote:

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.

Apparently, one test would be on the pledge of allegiance. And another test would be on a 147-year-old case that no longer has any validity. So I suppose we can confidently predict that Bush wouldn't pick any judge who would strike "under God" from the pledge or reintroduce slavery into the western territories.

That's certainly reassuring.

According to this New York Times Op-Ed, it wascode after all. Judging by its tone, the comment seems a bit on the scaremongering side to me, but I respect the New New York Times so here goes:

Quote:

Abortion might be a crime in most states. Gay people could be thrown in prison for having sex in their homes. States might be free to become mini-theocracies, endorsing Christianity and using tax money to help spread the gospel. The Constitution might no longer protect inmates from being brutalized by prison guards. Family and medical leave and environmental protections could disappear.

It hardly sounds like a winning platform, and of course President Bush isn't openly espousing these positions. But he did say in his last campaign that his favorite Supreme Court justices were Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and the nominations he has made to the lower courts bear that out. Justices Scalia and Thomas are often called "conservative," but that does not begin to capture their philosophies. Both vehemently reject many of the core tenets of modern constitutional law.

For years, Justices Scalia and Thomas have been lobbing their judicial Molotov cocktails from the sidelines, while the court proceeded on its moderate-conservative path. But given the ages and inclinations of the current justices, it is quite possible that if Mr. Bush is re-elected, he will get three appointments, enough to forge a new majority that would turn the extreme Scalia-Thomas worldview into the law of the land.

There is every reason to believe Roe v. Wade would quickly be overturned. Mr. Bush ducked a question about his views on Roe in the third debate. But he sent his base a coded message in the second debate, with an odd reference to the
Dred Scott case. Dred Scott, an 1857 decision upholding slavery, is rarely mentioned today, except in right-wing legal circles, where it is often likened to Roe. (Anti-abortion theorists say that the court refused to see blacks as human in Dred Scott and that the same thing happened to fetuses in Roe.) For more than a decade, Justices Scalia and Thomas have urged their colleagues to reverse Roe and "get out of this area, where we have no
right to be."

Full article here

One of the problems with the "strict constructionists" arguments...is that a decision like the Dred Scott decision is a "strict constructionist" ruling.

The Constitution of the United States...as originally written...did consider slaves to be less than human....3/5ths of a human each, if I remember correctly.

Oh please! The president was not stating that he would not choose judges who support Dred Scot. He was saying that Dred Scot was an example of a judge departing from interpreting the constitution and inserting his own "personal opinion."

bashtoreth wrote:

Oh please! The president was not stating that he would not choose judges who support Dred Scot. He was saying that Dred Scot was an example of a judge departing from interpreting the constitution and inserting his own "personal opinion."

What exactly was the "personal opinion" that Taney (or any of the justices who wrote for the majority in Dred Scott) inserted into the case?

Joe - I think this is the relevant part:

"......And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description....."
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/21.htm

Technically correct at the time.

Posted by nimh elsewhere, and quite irrelevant here, but I couldn't resist...

http://www.liegirls.com/

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Justice Taney, who wrote the Court's opinion in the Dred Scott case, was himself an anti-slavery adherent who wrote the decision from a strictly constructionist viewpoint. It has been suggested that his true aim in wording it as he did was to bring attention to the fact that the Constitution needed to be amended. Few, however, saw the absurdity in denying the status of humanity to chattel slaves and the 14th Amendment was not adopted until after a war had been fought over the issue.

Joe - I think this is the relevant part:

"......And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description....."
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/21.htm

Technically correct at the time.