Congress votes to remove a bust statue of Dred Scott Decision Supreme Court Justice.

[reason10]

And you thought our government wasn't doing anything important.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/congress-supreme-court-roger-taney/2022/12/15/id/1100690/

Congress OKs Bill to Remove Bust of Dred Scott Chief Justice

Quote

 

Congress approved legislation to replace a bust at the U.S. Capitol of former Chief Justice Roger Taney, who authored a landmark Supreme Court decision upholding slavery, with one of Thurgood Marshall, the first Black Supreme Court justice.

Taney, a Democrat from a wealthy slave-holding family in Maryland, was Attorney General under President Andrew Jackson when Jackson appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1835 to replace Chief Justice John Marshall.

Taney, who was chief justice from 1836 to 1864, is most notorious for his majority opinion in the Supreme Court's landmark 7-2 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857, which determined the U.S. Constitution did not extend to Blacks of African descent, whether they were free or slaves, and Congress had no authority to ban slavery in U.S. territories.

The decision inflamed tensions between free and slave states and was a spark that led to the Civil War. The Dred Scott decision was rendered moot by the passage of the 13^th Amendment, which abolished slavery.

 

Gee, libs. I guess Justice Taney was an evil man, for legalizing slavery, based on Substantive Due Process. And yet you left wingers CELEBRATE the Supreme Court opinion that relied on the SAME Substantive Due Process that made Dred Scott a slave again.

https://www.standrewslawreview.com/post/an-unlikely-agreement-robert-bork-and-hugo-black-on-substantive-due-process

Quote

Bork’s critique of substantive due process found in The Tempting of America centers around the doctrine being both non-existent in the Constitution and being an instrument by which the judiciary can begin to entertain a legislative function. Bork suggests that the history of substantive due process and the cases that constitute the use of the doctrine stem from the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford. In this case, Chief Justice Taney wrote that slave ownership was constitutional due to the postulation that slaveholding constituted a “right of property”, thus leading Taney to create the first occasion of substance being “poured” into the due process clause. As seen by the overview above, and by Bork

The origins of substantive due process to protect “fundamental rights” held by people did not originate in cases regarding civil liberties (as per Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges), but rather stemmed from the “right of free contract” set forward in Lochner v. New York. This created an era where freedom of contract was held as a fundamental right which could be invoked by the Supreme Court to invalidate any statutes that interfered with it. It was not until West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish that the Court repudiated Lochner v. New York and, thereby, the doctrine of substantive due process.

However, the doctrine did not die out. The majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut created a “right to privacy” based on the idea that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance”. In other words, rights guaranteed by the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments created “zones of privacy” which could not be interfered with by the State or Federal government. The overturning of the archaic Connecticut law banning contraceptives thus led directly into the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. This case famously stated of the Griswold v. Connecticut holding that:

 

Taney and Dred Scott led us to ROE.

Congrats, libs. Upholding slavery and then mass murder? Only a Democrat could have pulled that off.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by reason10

[robosmith]

^Top Troll cementing his legacy of stupid.

[Rebound]

I don’t think Taney’s bust should be removed. The Dred Scott ruling wasn’t about “substantive due process” or any other legal theory. It was about something far simpler: By ruling that escaped slaves were automatically freed, the Supreme Court would ignite a civil war. Yes, war came later, but Taney had no way to know that. 
 

I believe, truly, the Dred Scott decision boiled down to this: Freeing Mr. Scott would start a war. Awful position for the Court to find itself in. How can you issue a judicial ruling that will launch a war?