Last night's debate was actually held on my yard. From the camera angles I saw afterwards it appears that a few of the pundits set up shop near my office. (Then again, because the yard is so small, it is ALL near my office.) Now I wasn't there, because I'm here in Baltimore.
But I bring all that up (along with the point that I saw a few of my students on tv) to address a strange comment Bush brought up regarding Dred Scott. Some were wondering why in the hell Bush would bring up Dred Scott as a way to talk about what type of judges he would appoint? Not only was his understanding of the case off (to say the least), the entire spiel didn't really fit.
It isn't that deep. Dred Scott was decided in Saint Louis. The building in which the case was heard still stands downtown. Washington University digitized the proceedings of that case and dozens of others (with some interesting results I might add). I believe this was Bush's attempt to bring the local context into the debate.
Whether he succceeded is another question entirely.
Somebody else's Dred Scott theory.
Posted by: George Kelly at October 11, 2004 07:48 AMI believe the President was attempting to portray the Dred Scott ruling as legally contrived, and as such use it as a metaphor for Roe v. Wade. The problems with his argument is that slavery's legitimacy was acknowledged in the Constitution and Justice Taney employed a very strict (or literal) interpretation of legal precedents and the Constitution. What's ironic is Bush expressed his preference for jurists whom are "strict constructionists" like Taney.
Perhaps, as usual, he didn't know what the Hell he was talking about.
Posted by: MIB at October 11, 2004 11:48 AM
If Bush meant to localize it, it came off very badly on TV. The comment had me scratching my head, and wondering "Bush's standard is that he won't appoint judges who believe in slavery?" That should be a given, and he needed to take it up a century to make his point.
Posted by: molotov at October 10, 2004 07:41 PM