Dredd-Scott is Still in Effect and the Law of the Land.

[Nice Squirrel]

At least according to mental giant Mike Huckabee:


http://www.buzzfeed.com/christopher...ion-remains-to-this-day-the-law-of#.fsJnzL8KR

While defending Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue marriage licenses out of her religious opposition to same-sex marriage, Mike Huckabee said Wednesday that the Supreme Court’s 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford — which held that all blacks, free or enslaved, could not be American citizens — is still the law of the land even though no one follows it.

“I’ve been just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, ‘How dare you say that, uh, it’s not the law of the land?’” Huckabee said. “Because that’s their phrase, ‘it’s the law of the land.’ Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren’t fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?”

 

[Shadowy Man]

“The Supreme Court in the same-sex marriage decision made a law and they made it up out of thin air. Therefore, until Congress decides to codify that and give it a statute it’s really not an operative law and that’s why what Kim Davis did was operate under not only the Kentucky Constitution which was the law under which she was elected but she’s operating under the fact that there’s no statute in her state nor at the federal level that authorizes her,”

It is interesting to note that that is not what Kim Davis herself said she was doing. Had she taken a legalistic approach, it may have actually bought her a lot of time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

“The Supreme Court in the same-sex marriage decision made a law and they made it up out of thin air. Therefore, until Congress decides to codify that and give it a statute it’s really not an operative law and that’s why what Kim Davis did was operate under not only the Kentucky Constitution which was the law under which she was elected but she’s operating under the fact that there’s no statute in her state nor at the federal level that authorizes her,”

It is interesting to note that that is not what Kim Davis herself said she was doing. Had she taken a legalistic approach, it may have actually bought her a lot of time.

What legalistic approach? The US Congress doesn't have to pass anything. Gays are allowed to have their marriages be recognized by the states and feds. SCOTUS stamped it.

The Dred Scott decision was eviscerated by the 13th Amendment. How can you be a Governor of a state in this country and be that clueless?! This is worse than O'Reilly's 'we don't know how tides work' statement. It's fucking fifth (eighth?) grade Civics!

What a fucking idiot or asshole Huckabee is!

 

[Bronzeage]

It is interesting to note that that is not what Kim Davis herself said she was doing. Had she taken a legalistic approach, it may have actually bought her a lot of time.

What legalistic approach? The US Congress doesn't have to pass anything. Gays are allowed to have their marriages be recognized by the states and feds. SCOTUS stamped it.

The Dred Scott decision was eviscerated by the 13th Amendment. How can you be a Governor of a state in this country and be that clueless?! This is worse than O'Reilly's 'we don't know how tides work' statement. It's fucking fifth (eighth?) grade Civics!

What a fucking idiot or asshole Huckabee is!

As far as I know, no state ever had a legal voter qualification which stated, "no negro maybe a registered voter." What the laws did say was, "A voter must be white man and above the age of majority." In Colonial times, many states included that the voter had to have property valued above a certain amount.

The 13th amendment does not say, "Okay, from now on, Negros are free." It said, "you can't force a man to work against his will." That's any man.

The Supreme Court has not made a law out of thin air. It just said, "You can't deny two people a marriage license." That's any two people.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What legalistic approach? The US Congress doesn't have to pass anything. Gays are allowed to have their marriages be recognized by the states and feds. SCOTUS stamped it.

I don't disagree, but you could still tie up the courts with lawyers arguing over legal technicalities like what the state law's words actually say, blah blah blah.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What legalistic approach? The US Congress doesn't have to pass anything. Gays are allowed to have their marriages be recognized by the states and feds. SCOTUS stamped it.

I don't disagree, but you could still tie up the courts with lawyers arguing over legal technicalities like what the state law's words actually say, blah blah blah.

Not when SCOTUS has already ruled on this. It already went to court.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Oh GAWD! I would LOVE to see who would argue before the SCOTUS for the validity and enforcement of the DSD!

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

Oh GAWD! I would LOVE to see who would argue before the SCOTUS for the validity and enforcement of the DSD!

They couldn't. Not only the 13th Amendment but also the 5th and the 14th Amendments (incorporation and blahblahblah) struck it down.

IOW, no party would have standing to bring such a case before the Court--and any court that applies the requisite strict scrutiny test for racially discriminatory matters would immediately strike it down if someone somehow gained standing. But to gain standing, among other things, they'd have to reasonably prove that black people not being considered less than human was harming them in some way.

It's fucking silly. It would never see the light of day in any federal court and so would never reach the Supreme Court.

 

[arkirk]

Oh GAWD! I would LOVE to see who would argue before the SCOTUS for the validity and enforcement of the DSD!

They couldn't. Not only the 13th Amendment but also the 5th and the 14th Amendments (incorporation and blahblahblah) struck it down.

IOW, no party would have standing to bring such a case before the Court--and any court that applies the requisite strict scrutiny test for racially discriminatory matters would immediately strike it down if someone somehow gained standing. But to gain standing, among other things, they'd have to reasonably prove that black people not being considered less than human was harming them in some way.

It's fucking silly. It would never see the light of day in any federal court and so would never reach the Supreme Court.

So then the black man's citizenship is not based on the same "inalienable rights" of the founders of our nation but merely an afterthought. Civil rights have been won at great expense to a great many people of color. Racism is racism. Huckabee is a racist. Today's court has racists on it and it is questionable just what this court would consider. Our supreme court is a great liability to this country and should be reformed. Nobody should serve for life in any capacity...it is just plain ridiculous to personalize these offices, especially when it resulted in the likes of Scalia and Thomas on the court. They are an insult to the intelligence of the American people and are somehow permanently ensconced in offices they neither deserve nor appreciate.

 

[Bronzeage]

They couldn't. Not only the 13th Amendment but also the 5th and the 14th Amendments (incorporation and blahblahblah) struck it down.

IOW, no party would have standing to bring such a case before the Court--and any court that applies the requisite strict scrutiny test for racially discriminatory matters would immediately strike it down if someone somehow gained standing. But to gain standing, among other things, they'd have to reasonably prove that black people not being considered less than human was harming them in some way.

It's fucking silly. It would never see the light of day in any federal court and so would never reach the Supreme Court.

So then the black man's citizenship is not based on the same "inalienable rights" of the founders of our nation but merely an afterthought. Civil rights have been won at great expense to a great many people of color. Racism is racism. Huckabee is a racist. Today's court has racists on it and it is questionable just what this court would consider. Our supreme court is a great liability to this country and should be reformed. Nobody should serve for life in any capacity...it is just plain ridiculous to personalize these offices, especially when it resulted in the likes of Scalia and Thomas on the court. They are an insult to the intelligence of the American people and are somehow permanently ensconced in offices they neither deserve nor appreciate.

This the same thing people used to say about William O. Douglas.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Oh GAWD! I would LOVE to see who would argue before the SCOTUS for the validity and enforcement of the DSD!

They couldn't. Not only the 13th Amendment but also the 5th and the 14th Amendments (incorporation and blahblahblah) struck it down.

IOW, no party would have standing to bring such a case before the Court--and any court that applies the requisite strict scrutiny test for racially discriminatory matters would immediately strike it down if someone somehow gained standing. But to gain standing, among other things, they'd have to reasonably prove that black people not being considered less than human was harming them in some way.

It's fucking silly. It would never see the light of day in any federal court and so would never reach the Supreme Court.

I still want to see WHO would try.

 

[Bronzeage]

They couldn't. Not only the 13th Amendment but also the 5th and the 14th Amendments (incorporation and blahblahblah) struck it down.

IOW, no party would have standing to bring such a case before the Court--and any court that applies the requisite strict scrutiny test for racially discriminatory matters would immediately strike it down if someone somehow gained standing. But to gain standing, among other things, they'd have to reasonably prove that black people not being considered less than human was harming them in some way.

It's fucking silly. It would never see the light of day in any federal court and so would never reach the Supreme Court.

I still want to see WHO would try.

No one. Huckabee was talking to the choir, not the Court.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I still want to see WHO would try.

No one. Huckabee was talking to the choir, not the Court.

But it would be so much fun to see him prove his bullshit and I WANT TO SEE HIM TRY!!!!

 

[Bronzeage]

No one. Huckabee was talking to the choir, not the Court.

But it would be so much fun to see him prove his bullshit and I WANT TO SEE HIM TRY!!!!

I do too, but I doubt it will happen. Rick Perry just dropped out, so look for a few more to follow. Huckabee could be next, but even if he gets to the convention with a breath of a chance, who would challenge him on his Dred Scott statement? Trump thinks it's a Stallone movie and no one else wants to give him the attention.

 

[Derec]

Trump thinks it's a Stallone movie and no one else wants to give him the attention.

No, Judge Dred Scott is the blaxploitation version of the comic book where Pam Greer is playing the love interest.

As far as Huckabee, he showed utter ignorance of law or history of course, but contra arkirk I do not think he is a racist. He is certainly not a racist because of this.
Where he goofed I think is that he confused the issue of overturned rulings with constitutional amendments not actually changing the text. The text of Prohibition is still part of the constitution even if it has been repealed and is no longer the law of the land. The 3/5 compromise is still in Article I Section 2 even though it is no longer law of the land.
That is contrary to how things work in many other countries. For example in Germany during reunification in 1990 the Article 23 (concerning reunification) was deleted and in 1992 Article 23 was reinserted, but now it concerned the EU.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

They couldn't. Not only the 13th Amendment but also the 5th and the 14th Amendments (incorporation and blahblahblah) struck it down.

IOW, no party would have standing to bring such a case before the Court--and any court that applies the requisite strict scrutiny test for racially discriminatory matters would immediately strike it down if someone somehow gained standing. But to gain standing, among other things, they'd have to reasonably prove that black people not being considered less than human was harming them in some way.

It's fucking silly. It would never see the light of day in any federal court and so would never reach the Supreme Court.

So then the black man's citizenship is not based on the same "inalienable rights" of the founders of our nation but merely an afterthought.

The Amendments in question were corrective measures to ensure it could never happen again. What do you want, a time machine?

Nobody should serve for life in any capacity...it is just plain ridiculous to personalize these offices, especially when it resulted in the likes of Scalia and Thomas on the court. They are an insult to the intelligence of the American people and are somehow permanently ensconced in offices they neither deserve nor appreciate.

Would you rather have a Court that changed the laws of the land every few years? That would be owned by lobbyists? Commerce would come to a standstill because one year, states would suddenly be allowed to charge a fee for commercial shipping traveling through the state and a couple years later that would get reversed. In the meantime, the laws of federal civil procedure, tort, contract, and commerce law would have to be dramatically altered and then back again and then maybe to some other variation.

In short, it'd be a fucking mess.

No system is perfect. And the Supreme Court is easily the least imperfect of the three branches of government. Throughout history we've seen Justices change their opinions over time---look no farther than Kennedy and the recent decision to legalize same sex marriage. Over time his opinion evolved to believe that equal protection really means just that. Also, look at the ACA. Roberts, supposedly a staunch across-the-board conservative was the swing vote that permitted the ACA to come into existence.

You aren't always going to get your way. That doesn't mean the system isn't working. It just isn't working the way you want it to or it's not working at a pace you'd like. But show me a government that changed overnight and I'll show you a nation that's in shambles.

 

[laughing dog]

Huckabee is desperate for attention. He has proven in the past he will say incredibily stupid stuff just to get his piehole in the news.

 

[ksen]

No one. Huckabee was talking to the choir, not the Court.

But it would be so much fun to see him prove his bullshit and I WANT TO SEE HIM TRY!!!!

It would at least start getting his poll numbers to rise with the GOP base.

 

[marc]

Huckabee is desperate for attention. He has proven in the past he will say incredibily stupid stuff just to get his piehole in the news.

Well that, and it goes along with the whole idea of 'we can just ignore the supreme court if we want to'. Probably scores points with the hardcore racists too.

 

[Bomb#20]

Civil rights have been won at great expense to a great many people of color. Racism is racism. Huckabee is a racist. Today's court has racists on it and it is questionable just what this court would consider.

Oh GAWD! I would LOVE to see who would argue before the SCOTUS for the validity and enforcement of the DSD!

... It would never see the light of day in any federal court and so would never reach the Supreme Court.

I still want to see WHO would try.

No one. Huckabee was talking to the choir, not the Court.

But it would be so much fun to see him prove his bullshit and I WANT TO SEE HIM TRY!!!!

Um, for the benefit of the reading comprehension impaired here, Huckabee did not argue for the validity or the enforcement of Dred Scott. Quite the reverse. He argued that the evident invalidity of Dred Scott and the fact that it should not be enforced demonstrate that we should not take the Supreme Court saying something is the law of the land as a reason to do it. He was in effect arguing "Just as black people are equal citizens even though the law says otherwise, likewise, only opposite sex couples can marry even though the law says otherwise." He's displaying ignorance of the 14th Amendment, a disturbing lack of appreciation for rule of law, homophobia, and extreme stupidity; but he's not displaying racism.

As far as Huckabee, he showed utter ignorance of law or history of course, but contra arkirk I do not think he is a racist. He is certainly not a racist because of this.

Bingo.