Dred Scott attacked us on 9/11 (Dred Scott == Roe v. Wade in codespeak)

Search "Dred Scott Roe Wade" and you get 15,000 hits.

http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2001/jan01/01-01-19.html
If Dred Scott Wasn’t The “Settled Law of the Land,” Neither is Roe

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2106.html
Substantive Due Process, Dred Scott v. Sandford, and Roe v. Wade
"It seemed that the Missouri Compromise, which had stood for thirty-seven years, was unconstitutional. Congress could not restrict slavery anywhere. Why? Because by doing so, Congress had denied slaveholders “due process of law.” That’s the magic of substantive due process.

Absurd? Perhaps. But you see, the Supreme Court had taken it upon itself to save the country. They would remove the issue of slavery from the political arena and the foolish whims of democratically-elected leaders. They would also foreclose any peaceful solution to the issue. Half a million men would die because of the Supreme Court."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript3/index.html
Bush "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."

whatever the hell Bush was trying to do, it came out -- and remains -- incoherent.

Get a grip, Chimpy. This is meaningless mush for the masses.

I thought he was as off as Bushie -- but apparently he wasn't --

Ask what is the most devilish use of the phrase, and you will have found the answer.

I knew it was code for something, although the best I could come up with was that it was laying the groundwork for some sort of weird justification for ammending the constitution "to protect American values like traditional marriage" (wasn't the 14th amendment partly a response to the Dred Scott decision?)

But, if you're right, and you probably are, it didn't work. Anybody who would have understood the code would be a die-hard, fired-up bushbot already.

attacked on 9/11. Weren't you listening?

the GOP will have gone for at least 18 years without an appointment to the US Supreme Court: 1991 through 2009.

We could end-up forcing Rehnquist to choose between his own retirement and the direction of the court. Stevens would finally get to retire without worry. Ginsburg would know that, should her cancer reoccur, she can leave without worry. O'Connor might also choose between retirement and court direction; either that, or she might end-up feeling guilty about putting the Chimp in power and decide to step-down as penance.

The new court could look like this:
Thomas & Scalia
vs.
Kennedy
vs.
Breyer & Souter & Kerry Appointee #1, KA #2, KA #3, KA #4

Could you imagine the frustration that Scalia would encounter as a Clinton-Kerry Majority outvotes him at every turn?

If we win the White House and the Senate, we could end-up frickin' DOMINATING the US Supreme Court for a good twenty years.

great way to appeal to the swing and undecided voters, reference an over 100 year old Supreme Court case on slavery MEANT as a code for Roe v. Wade that NO ONE gets but the most HARD CORE frothing at the mouth anti-choice bush supporter.

The rest of the world (meaning MOST of us) cocked their heads and went "HUH? What an IDIOT!"

That was the point. Code speak only works if the people you're trying to keep the "secret" from don't know what the code means.

voters and concentrate instead on motivating and turning out the republican base together with attempting to depress democratic turnout. Lots of pundits and journalists have commented on being told this by people in the Bush campaign.

Well then bye bye bushie! He CAN'T win this. He has NOT increased his base in the last four years (if anything, he's lost voters) AND Dems and others who hate him are more motivated than EVER to vote for Kerry.

But I also think it will depend on their success at depressing democratic turnout. They will have some more despicable slime sitting on Bush's desk right now to be released as the election draws nearer.

He is not the uniter he pretended to be. He is not an individual interested in reaching out and leading America, following the divisiveness of the Clinton years. In fact, he's deepened the divide within America as never before. Bush is clearly a local Texas politician pursuing local Texas politics from the White House address, only interested in local conservative values. He hasn't tried to expand his world view or even his view of America. Instead, he's stubbornly retained his highly insular view of the world and defied America and the rest of the world to either like it or lump it.

His typical incoherence left the rest of us either confused, or thinking that he's against justices injecting "personal opinion" into their rulings.

Instead it was a secret call to arms to his dedicated fundamentalist base. Only they understand the sly reference. The deal was struck: vote for me and I'll overturn Roe v Wade. Silently they will swarm to the polls on election day in their greatest turnout yet.

I still don't think it will be enough to overcome the massive outpouring of Kerry voters, especially those that are not even being polled. This is a VERY serious election, indeed.

Dred was overturned by statute--the 14th amendment. (slaves/blacks morph into persons, as defined by law)

If you extend the 14th amendment's due process clause to mean that a fetus is a person--

then, Roe v. Wade is overturned.

This has long been a strategy of the right wing, and is clearly spelled out in the dissents of Roe, and Casey.

Of course, there is no caselaw that defines the fetus as a person--so the rightwing has been busily trying to chip away at Roe by building case after case....

Mentioning Dred was deliberate.

I see that Chimpy has learned codespeak from Karl Rove.

This is from Free Republic:

Michael Tomasky is executive editor of The American Prospect.

There's no point in doing a little political punditry in the October of an election year without going way out on a limb, so here goes: As I smelled it, the most important thing that happened in the second presidential debate is that George W. Bush lost a good chunk of the women's vote.

He's been ahead, you know, among large blocs of women. If you take away black women, who appear to vote more based on their race than their sex (and thus vote heavily Democratic), Bush leads John Kerry among women. The media have made great hoo-ha lately about this fact, noting and arguing that Bush was gaining steadily and building a solid lead among the "security moms" because of his successful attacks (read: fear-mongering lies) on Kerry's ability to fight terrorism.

I'm guessing that Friday night, that trend started shifting into reverse. It wasn't any single thing Bush said. It was the manner: the schoolyard swagger, the left arm cocked like an itchy gunslinger's, the arrogant sneer, the roosterish strutting -- and the voice. God, that voice. You don't quite call that screaming. It wasn't exactly caterwauling. Maybe yowling. Whatever it was, he sounded like a tedious and noisome braggart in the parking lot after a football game. Having seen plenty of those, and having been that myself from time to time, experience teaches me to take the view that most women do not find that figure appealing.

drawn between Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade, that he's heard it and agrees with it, but couldn't articulate it. It's not a new idea in the pro-life community.