Kerry needs to confront Bush on Dred Scott This is important

Bush distanceds blacks with his reference to this pre-Civil War case that was overturned by the Civil War Amendments. But this was not why he mentioned it.

Dred Scott is a code word among Bush's gang for Roe v. Wade. Bush will not appoint any justices who support Roe v. Wade. Bush, in the last debate, was basically saying that all justices he would appoint must agree to make abortion ILLEGAL. He said it right in the debate and most people missed it.

or I forget the context it was in. Could you clarify it?

Supreme court judges. If you want to know how Dred Scott is connected to Roe v. Wade, go to Google and put Dred Scott + Roe v Wade in the search engine. There are tons of entries.

has been talking about their lingo for some time. I was unobservant myself. When he mentioned Dred Scott, I thought he was just an idiot. Then, people active in the pro-choice movement came up to me and told me that it was part of the administrations lingo for opposition to Roe v. Wade. It has been his code word for his appointements for some time.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=dredd+scott+abortion&btnG=Search

That should answer that question. No leap, Dredd Scott has been used by the anti-choice people for some time.

overturn it?"

Make him say it, or deny it.

While this may be a code word in conspiracy-ville, this idea turns off the undecided.

The dred scott was an issue related to abortion. We cannot fall into the trap of talking about fringe issues: abortion, gun rights, gay rights because we aren't gonna convert these guys.

When Bush mentioned the Dred Scott the more educated of the undecideds thought "What a moran--that was over a hundred years ago."

You need to think like an undecided voter is thinking.

If Kerry brings it up the response will be the same.

Kerry should focus on the core issues that push the undecided: Work, War, Wages (ie the economy) and take Bush to task on those.

The debate IS NOT about satisfying the hard core democrat's need to embarass the president, it is about pushing Bush to tell us his lack of plans for these items.

if they are pro choice then they already know Kerry is too.

And they know Bush is NOT pro choice.

If they aren't pro choice this isn't gonna affect him.

I totally believe that if we make the mistake of bringing up Supreme Court Justice appointees we are gonna loose swing voters who don't like bush but don't want liberals stacking the supreme court.

Focus on what undecided voters care about The War and Economy.

If abortion has seemed like a fringe issue for a while, it is only because we have not actually believed the Christian Right would get it outlawed. With the Supreme Court vacancies we might have in a next term, I am not so sure anymore. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will again become a very mainstream issue. I, for one, think it is important to 43 and would love it see him called on it.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Maybe specific hypothetical cases that might be presented to the court in the future is too esoteric and thus too fringe for the elusive independent voters...but the more global concept of a Supreme Court appointment that will influence Constitututinal Law for decades to come ought to be a HUGE issue in this election.

To point out how ill-informed and inadequate *'s treatment of this issue was in the 2nd debate, refreshing the public's memory about *'s reference to Dread Scott can be done in a way that may cause some Pro Lifers to pause.

*'s central point was that 'allegedly' he is against activist judges, like Justice Taney.

Chief Justice Taney was not being an activist. He was just following the letter of the law, and more specifically, the nature of citizenship and the bill of rights as it was known at that time.

In Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), the Court had before it a challenge to the validity of the Act of Congress known as the Missouri Compromise which excluded slavery from specified northern portions of the United States territory. Justice Taney based his decision on the citizenship status of slaves and found them to be more like property than citizens.

In view of the importance of citizenship, it is surprising that the constitution originally did not define it. However, the desire to assure citizenship to former slaves (who had been held not to be citizens in Dred Scott) led to the definition contained in the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Even later, by statute, Congress had added three principal categories to the constitutional definition of citizenship: (1) persons born in the United States to members of Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribes; (2) persons born outside the United States of parents both of whom are citizens and one of whom has had a residence in the United States prior to birth of such person; and (3) persons born outside the United States where only one parent is a citizen and that person had resided in the United States for a prescribed period.

In the debate, the President does three things:
1. Candidate Bush completely disregards the historical and legal context of the Dread Scott decision; and
2. Candidate Bush misrepresents Justice Taney as an activist judge who misuses personal opinion to alter plain language interpretation of the law and the constitution. That is not what Taney was doing. Unfortunately, Taney was not an activist judge--he was merely (casually) applying the law of the land as it was written in 1857.
3. Ironically, Candidate Bush ignores the precedent set by his own Administration. Sadly, it was his Administration that turned American citizenship on its head with the (casual) classification of American citizens as "enemy combatants." For someone who claims that Taney had it all wrong with regards to the rights of 'citizens,' his Administration's interpretation of the rights is citizens is not much different than Taney--'natural' rights depend on what label you the citizen happen to have today.


For Pro-Lifers, they should be concerned since overturning Roe will take an activist judge.

For Independents, they should be concerned that the President has so little grasp on history and the Constitution.

For Civil Libertarians, they should just be concerned about the President's labels--who knows what label his define by executive fiat next.

Then why even bother? It wasn't like Chimpy did anything but sound like an idiot in the first place....and I doubt there's a person alive who honestly thinks Bush is pro-choice.

When it was later pointed out to me, I had a vague recollection of hearing it before.

Especially since all it seemed to most people was that Dumbya didn't know what he was babbling about....

It shows how sneaky, devious and dishonest Bush is.

"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 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."

Did anyone note the timing of the wink?

Bush could not win this election. Of course, he caters to them. Their main issues are Abortion, Gay (Anti)Rights, School vouchers, prayer in schools, anti-evolution, replace evolution theory with Creationist Doctrine, Christian symbols in public, America based on Christian Doctrine. The SC is vital in their goals.

talks about the horror we face if the next Supreme's are appointed by bush, the anti-christ.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2004/10/13/notes101304.DTL&nl=fix

~Imagine Bush filches another election in November. Nations mourn, black clouds gather, children cry, colons spasm, the remaining shreds of the American experiment wither and die.

And within a very short time, as many as 30 U.S. states have recriminalized abortion and made repressing women and hating sex fun again, as young American females everywhere who thought their right to choose was pretty much incontrovertible and indisputable and unfailing and who therefore didn't bother to vote in '00 or '04 suddenly go, oh holy freaking hell.

Hello, 1950s. Hello, coat-hanger surgery. Hello, millions of despondent daughters of uptight parents. Hello, dead or mutilated teenage girls who suffer botched procedures. Hello, a fresh national nightmare, revisited, regurgitated, reborn. And hello again to smug right-wing males who've wanted to put women back in their place for the past 50 years. Check that: 200 years. Check that: forever.

Just a silly nightmare? Utterly impossible? A ridiculous liberal daydream? Not even close, sweetheart.

It's all about the Supreme Court, of course. ~