Bush's "Dred Scott" gaffe: along the lines of Ford's "Poland" blunder?

[Gabi Hayes]

so says this editorial in today's Chicago Tribune, who says the pundits, AS USUAL, misse the biggest gaffe of the myriad made by the chimperial highness. This hasn't been discussed that much here, either, IIRC. Bush REALLY stepped in it with the Dred Scott bit, revealing how utterly CLUELESS he is in even the basics of US legal history. let the professor explain:

The recent debates between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry have generated plenty of commentary. Democrats claim Bush has been stubborn and inflexible; Republicans insist Kerry can't keep his own positions straight. On the whole, however, the punditocracy pretty much agrees that neither candidate has blundered into a fatal gaffe. But that is only because they were not paying close attention.

In the second debate, Bush was asked whom he would choose to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. After appropriately declining to name an individual, Bush explained that he would not pick judges who attempted to insert their personal opinions into constitutional interpretation. For example, he said, he would not nominate a judge who believed that the words "under God" could not be included in the Pledge of Allegiance. And then the president made this stunning statement: "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." What woeful ignorance of American history.

Alas, the Constitution of the United States--at the time of the Dred Scott case--did indeed protect slavery as a personal property right. Article Four even required the free states to cooperate in returning runaway slaves to bondage.

Mr. President, that is why we had a Civil War. That is why Abraham Lincoln had to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 13th Amendment was necessary to abolish slavery. And then the 14th Amendment had to be added to guarantee full citizenship and equal protection of the law to the newly freed slaves. This is no small matter. The president must defend and uphold the United States Constitution, so it seems pretty reasonable to expect him to know something about it, not to mention the causes of the Civil War.


more
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0410120243oct12,1,1408372.story

this REALLY rips the moran to shreds, and should be passed on.

[TwilightZone]

Bush's "gaffe" was probably code for Roe v. Wade.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108083/

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a coded message to his base. It wouldn't be the first time.

[Gabi Hayes]

5. well aware of that, but for those who don't care about the code

he demonstrates both his complete ignorance, AND his inability to follow through with anything beyond the very SIMPLEST thoughts.

that's what makes me so furious that anybody undecided could listen to this guy and wonder how he got out of EIGHTH grade

how embarrassed must they be at Yale and Harvard to be represented by such an ignorant, arrogant buffoon!

[TwilightZone]

10. No offense, but he's demonstrated ignorance and thoughtlessness

approximately every other day his entire adult life. This is certainly not the first time, and it most certainly won't be the last. It is only the latest in a series of utterly stupid events that are the life and times of George W. Bush.

This event will no more convince the inconvincible of his stupidity than the last 100 times he's looked like a complete fool.

Yes, he's a buffoon, but the fact that he is a buffoon is why a lot of people support him, inexplicably. It's a age-old, junior high mentality - people still hate the smart kids and gravitate toward the dumb jocks.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Right. Google "Dred Scott Abortion". It's all there.

[Gabi Hayes]

1. PLEASE read this and give it the distribution it warrants

Kerry should take the time to dissect the complete IDIOCY of what this moran said, as he couldn't even complete his THOUGHT!

that's what strikes me the most about both these debates

if you READ the transcripts, as horribly as you think he did while watching/listening, you'll be stunned at how incoherent he is on so many subjects

in

co

her

ent

[Fenris]

2. My parents were astounded at how loudly I was laughing when he said that.

It was the funniest thing I had heard that night. And painfully embarrassing. The Yale history department must still be vomiting over that one.

[grannylib]

16. And he's a HISTORY MAJOR!!!! Golly. Send this to Kerry campaign PLEASE

Kerry could really slam him on this one HUGELY....

[Gabi Hayes]

17. forgot about that, but I think the editorial mentions it

how come nobody's interested in this?

it should be major schwing for the Kerry campaign

bet they didn't even figure this out

I haven't heard ONE word out of anyone from their camp in, what, FOUR freaking days?

[shraby]

3. Google Dred Scott + Roe v Wade

[Spiffarino]

4. Dred Scott decision is code for the Abortionistas

There are many "thinkers" in the anti-abortion movement who cite the Dred Scott decision as proof that abortion rights are unconstitutional and the laws should be changed.

Google "Dred Scott - Roe v. Wade" and you'll get about 1,000 hits on this line of reasoning...if you can stomach it.

[Gabi Hayes]

7. I just responed to the code thing above

I understand that, and read all that stuff yesterday.

this goes beyond that.

It should be of interest to those who are not swayed by the abortion coding, and need to be made what an IGNORAMUS this guy is, and how completely cynical he had to be to make such a case, unless he didn't know, as the professor said, that this case is what caused the 13 and 14 amendments of the constitution to be added.

Too bad Kerry didn't know enough about the constitution to remind the idiot in chief that it was the LAW OF THE LAND to return runaway slaves, and NOT a matter of personal opinion

Indeed, these justices were EXACTLY the sort he admires: STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS, who were following the letter of that document

for pundoids, and WORSE, for the idiot dem surrogates not to POUNCE on this egregious example of total ignorance is shameful on the part of the former, and inexcusable on the part of the latter; yet another example of the almost complete fecklessness of the Achordate Party, in comparison to the Shark Party's unerring ability to turn just about anything Kerry says into instant campaign fodder

[Tansy_Gold]

20. I'm quite sure Senator Kerry knows the Constitution quite well.

n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

21. if he does, why did he choose not to mention any of the points brought

up in the article?

he could have done MUCH better in response to this asinine display of arrogant ignorance

[beaconess]

27. Perhaps because it's because it's been 30 or so years since he read

the Dred Scott decision and couldn't remember exactly what the holding was. Most lawyers - especially those who don't practice civil rights law - couldn't have told you off the top of their heads whether Bush's description of the holding in the case was correct. Kerry likely just wasn't up to speed enough on the details of the case to challenge Bush at the moment - and why he should he have been? Who in their right mind would have expected that Bush would launch into a lecture about the holding of a case that hasn't been good law for 140 years?

Maybe in preparation for this debate, Kerry should brush up on old, bad case law just in case Bush wants to bring it up. Who knows? Tonight, Bush may treat us to a lesson on Pennoyer v. Neff.

It's hard to debate someone who's in touch with reality, but at least there are rules and strictures of logic. Can you imagine how hard it is to debate someone who is not bound by any standards of reality, but weaves equal parts of fantasy and cluelessness into his arguments? The fact that Kerry is doing so well against Bush in these debates is a true testament to his sharpness.

[Gabi Hayes]

29. oh, come ON! I could have ripped him on that one! until Bush v. Gore

that was arguably the WORST SCOTUS decision EVER

I knew what the 13th and 14th amendments did, Kerry should have ASKED Bush how they were reflective of Dred Scott

I agree with the last part of your post, about Bush being delusional, etc., but still think Kerry could have come up with a better response on that

I'm in SUCH a state of worry now, so my judgment is off, and I find myself getting more and more pessimo every day.

more as a result of the unbelievable massive effort afoot to steal the election on myriad fronts, rather than how the campaign is going; it just bleeds over

sorry to others at whom I've snapped on this thread

time for some stelazine

[beaconess]

30. The issue was not whether Dred Scott was a bad decision - even Bush

said it was. Bush's claim was that he wanted judges who would follow the law, not judges who would inject their personal opinions into cases, as he says the justices in Dred Scott did. It's not surprising that Kerry could not effectively counter that claim in 30 seconds not having seen that case in years. I used to teach civil rights law and still had to go back and look at the case to refresh my recollection about this. I'm hardly surprised that Kerry didn't have a quick comeback on this issue. I also don't think it would have been all that effective for Kerry to launch into a lecture about the fine points of the Dred Scott case, a decision with which many Americans aren't the least bit familiar, since I doubt that there are too many people who would decide to vote against Bush because he didn't understand the holding in a 150 year old case they'd never even heard of.

Instead of getting bogged down in minutae, Kerry took it back to the broader issue, reminding voters about what's at stake in this election and calling Bush out for the kinds of appointments he has made and will continue to make.

A few years ago when he came to office, the president said -- these are his words -- What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts.

And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.

So you get a pretty good sense of where he's heading if he were to appoint somebody. Now, here's what I believe. I don't believe we need a good conservative judge, and I don't believe we need a good liberal judge. I don't believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either side.

I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you're reading a good judicial decision.

What I want to find, if I am privileged to have the opportunity to do it -- and the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race, ladies and gentlemen.

The future of things that matter to you -- in terms of civil rights, what kind of Justice Department you'll have, whether we'll enforce the law. Will we have equal opportunity? Will women's rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman's right to choose be protected?

These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.

I think he handled it just right.

[acmavm]

6. If anyone expects bush* to know anything about ANYTHING they are

in for one hell of a big disappointment.

He's disgraced the office of president. And I bet we've set some kind of record for the biggest doofus to ever hold public office with that guy. I know, I know, he wasn't elected. But when the bush* cabal moved into the White House before the dust was even settled, we should have taken to the streets. That action foretold every other illegal and unethical action that they've taken since they hijacked the 2000 election. And they are not going to leave quietly. They stole one election, they won't hesitate to steal another. And they can't afford not to. This administration gets kicked out of office and they know, truly know, that there are criminal charges in their futures.

[Gabi Hayes]

8. A.....MEN!!!!

could not agree more, and am salivating over the day Kerry kicks out all those political appointees from the DOJ, and goes after those crimials hammer and tong

that was a HUGE mistake Clinton made, by not prosectuing members of the first Bush admin

I'll bet Kerry goes the same route, though, and allows the RW to crawl all over him, as Clinton did in the first few months, setting the stage for an onslaught that they were never able to overcome

somebody today was just talking about this: recalling a conversation with somebody from Clinton's war room in 92. he said that what I mentioned in the above paragraph is EXACTLY what happened: the right wing NEVER let up after the election, and WJC, etal, slacked off, thinking, wrongly, they had some breathing room

but they didn't realize at the time the REAL breadth and DEPTH of the VRWC

it's here now, strengthened, and emboldened, and our democracy hangs as tenuously now as it did during the nascent Weimar Republic

we all know what happened then

[pretzel4gore]

11. and the mediawhores abetted them

indeed, the mediawhore came first, geebush is a result of mediawhore-dom...
goddamit i wanna see rush limbaugh tom brocawcaw etc put down like the dogs they are....

[SoCalDemocrat]

12. Seperation of Church and State

Isn't there something about seperation of church and state in the Constitution? I thought that was a telling point that Bush said he would not nominate a judge who would legislate to remove "Under God" from the Pledge.

Well that bit of religious dogma was introduced during the McCarthy communist witch hunt era, in spite of our Constitutional protections. The fact that Bush made this statement shows both his ignorance of history and his unwillingness to make appointments that will in fact uphold the Constitution.

The first amendment is most likely the single most important piece of our Constitution.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression , 1791

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Gabi Hayes]

13. nothing specifically about the separation between church and state

in the actual constitution

but an ad hoc version of that was contained in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, in which those very words were used, and employed in the first decision revolving around that, something about government money given to a CHURCH, hah, to be distributed to poor people

you can look it up, if you want, but that's the rough idea

this concept was used everafter to imply that there is/should be a wall of separation between the two

[Vincardog]

18. AMMENDMENTS TO the Constitution #! CHECK IT OUT BONE HEAD

AMMENDMENTS TO
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Gabi Hayes]

19. HEY YOU....BONEHEAD times two

learn to READ before you make such completely ignorant statements

I SAID that there is NO specific mention of separation between church and state; is that so difficult to wrap your tiny brain around?

can you comprehend that, BONEHEAD?

find me where it MENTIONS separation between church and state in the constitution, BONEHEAD

and you might want to learn how to spell before you throw around your ignoramus spewage

frickin idiot

[PurityOfEssence]

23. Don't get all rickety-headed, consarn it; you're wrong

You didn't say that the term "separation of church and state" wasn't used in the Constitution, your wording was about the concept being there. It most definitely is, and that's what Article 1 of the Bill of Rights starts off saying.

Jefferson's letter to the Connecticut Baptists is the source of the term, but the concept is intrinsic to the Constitution.

[Gabi Hayes]

24. jesus.....what's with you people?

read my post again.

I specifically DO say that separation of Church and state is NOT mentioned in the constitution. please show me where it is, and I'll instantly become un-rickety headed

that being the case it can NOT be considered intrinsic

if it's not THERE, it's not intrinsic; get it?

it's EXTRINSIC, therefore cannot be anything more than imPLIED

get it?

don't get all rickety headed about it, now

get it?

[Gabi Hayes]

14. beddybye kick

this is Bush's POLAND!

come ON people

if this gets out, he could be toast

help the groundswell form

I'm serious

this SHOWS what a complete idiot he is

MEDIA BLAST!

they're ignoring this simpleton again, and letting him get away with it again

[Gabi Hayes]

15. wise up. read this. do something with it

seriously

I mean it

now get outta here

[Supersedeas]

22. His central point was that * wants doesn't want ACTIVIST judges

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.

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."

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 complete 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.

But really, we can't expect the Ken and Barbie talking faces of the TV 'news' networks to discuss the implications of Bush's reference to Justice Taney. More cynically, the idea that the long term future of the Supreme Court will be impacted by the winner of this election may be the last non-superificial thing the blather faces want Americans to consider.

[Gabi Hayes]

25. excellent summation, but, as you say, MUCH too un-soundbitey

for the media clones who jabber about how close Kerry got to Bush in the second debate, or how much more SNAPPY Bush acted in the immediate aftermath of same: I saw tweety mention the latter in his squawkathon last night

thanks for that....saving it for its concise skewering of the dunderhead in chief

[K8-EEE]

26. Lurking Freepers: Your Boy Is Constitutionally Ignorant! KICK!

I think this is important....thanks for posting!

[Gabi Hayes]

28. thanks SO much for reminding me! remember when that freaking MORAN

said THIS:

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law."
—Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000

now, Kerry's boys should make a BIGBUY ad out of that, and bring in the dred scott case, maybe, or just point out what a complete IDIOT he is.

or use this a a flip flop, cause he did say what the various branches' functions are during that second debate, I'm almost positive.