SCOTUS Nominee doesn't remember basis of Dred Scott

It would have been difficult for the Dred Scott decision to have been based upon the 14th amendment.

Calendars and all that.

quote:

---

It would have been difficult for the Dred Scott decision to have been based upon the 14th amendment.

Calendars and all that

---

She had the qualifications

Black
Female (which presumes gender and seems to exclude trans, but we can only check so many boxes)

Can we get the empty barrels out of our government, please?

Isn't that decision discussed in grammar school, high school, college and law school? Isn't it referenced constantly in social justice issues? Isn't it considered the worst holding from The Supreme Court in its history?

How can she not know that?

Speaks well for her Ivy League education. Other than Sotomayor, can you imagine what her future colleagues are thinking? How about those that got passed over for her?

Like I posted weeks ago, we don't really need her on the bench. We know how she'll vote. We can just put her vote down in the leftist column on every decision.

This is what happens when someone is chosen based on what color they are.

quote:

---

SCOTUS Nominee doesn't remember basis of Dred Scott

---

That's dreadful

quote:

---

Isn't that decision discussed in grammar school, high school, college and law school? Isn't it referenced constantly in social justice issues? Isn't it considered the worst holding from The Supreme Court in its history?

How can she not know that?

---

Setting aside the 14th Amendment issue, exactly what question was she asked? Was she asked for the broad ruling or for details of the analysis?

I would say that about 10% (or less) of the population could tell you the most basic nature of the ruling (that Blacks were disqualified from US citizenship). Probably 80% of lawyers could tell you that much.

But how many could (without reviewing the opinion) discuss the details of the analysis that led CJ Taney to reach the conclusion that he reached?

On a quick review, I tend to disagree with the Senator that the decision's foundation lay in "due process."

quote:

---

We think ... that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

---

It is true that Taney addressed the taking of property without due process under the 5th Amendment, but I see that part of the reported opinion as being dicta aimed at the Missouri Compromise in general, rather than Scott's case in particular.

It is fair to ask whether KBJ's "unique background" led her automatically to interpret the "due process" comment as a reference to the 14th, rather than the 5th ... and whether jumping to such conclusions is a "good thing."

As a female I don’t want to get a job because of that .. nor do I want a job because of my color.

Have they asked her, you know based off of the 14th amendment, how she feels about men and women a like, being discriminated against for the SCOTUS position, based on race?


What was her answer?

I could find you 2Ls that would blow this bitch away.