I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Frist?
Nanny nanny boo boo. your guy sucked - W wins. pucker up bitches
Yeah, Bush was definitely reaching with that one!
Ferry droned on and on with the same tired talking points he sounded like.... Bush in the last debate. somebody needs some botox and some fresh virgin blood to revive them...
I always thought the most offensive mistakes were those connected with direct attacks upon someone. Getting Dred Scott wrong may show Bush to be ignorant. All the talk of "Halliburton" by Kerry is more offensive, both because Kerry knows better, and because it is a slander of Cheney.
That had to be the most surreal comment of the night. I mean, do we seriously have a boatload of Federal judges that think we should bring back slavery?
Don't lose the forest for the trees: what does it say about Bush that he thinks slavery is somehow relevant today?
yeah, that was a really bad example of what bush thought he was talking about. at the time the constitution did consider slaves property and did not grant them any rights.
lets see... oil for foodgate... pound home the fact the majority like straight talk and ... your guy looks like frankenberry... oh and all the questions are biased toward Ferry but W still holds his own. pucker up bitches.
Bingo, I caught that too.
On the other hand, Bush liked the holding in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Aren't personal property rights a part of the "ownership society?"
I can't believe he brought up Dred Scott. While fuedal puppet above can kiss my hairy yellow butt, I have to say the Shrub did much better tonite than last time.
Wasn't Dred Scott actually an example of strict constructionism?
Georgie must've been asleep or drunk during that class. You liberals can't even let a man sleep ferchrissssakes!
Iraq... put more men on the job
afaganistan full of poppys 0 put more men on the job
Terah zah - not happy at home... put more men on the job
the dimwitt should have taken the Old Courthouse tour while he was here...they offer reenactments to eighth graders and Presidents...
dumbass man...that's all...dumbass
Dred Scott was the decision upon which "separate but equal" was determined to be the law of the land until Brown V. Board of education decided "separate but equal" was inherently unequal.
I'm no American History scholar, but even I know that. So, where was Bush in his Grade 9 American History Class?
Why hasn't anyone brought up the fact when he talked about the Supreme Court appointment, Bush said he hoped that they would all vote for him. My mouth just dropped on that.
brown vs bored of your idle chatter about court cases
Did you see bush's face when he started in on his Dread Scott point. He turned beet red as he was trying to get it out....
And in general I'd say that Bush's preferred strict constructionists would have decided Dred Scott exactly the way he says they shouldn't have.
I was actually shocked that he even mentioned that case, since without some "activist judges" (see Plessy v. Ferguson and others), Dred Scott might still be valid.
he opnly brought Dred Scott up because he was trying to pander to the locals.
dumbass flip-flopper...He doesn't believe anyone should have the right to sue
But that comment was followed by Bush's closing, something like, "Legislators make the law. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution."
Don't they interpret the Law, which includes the Constitution?
wow, the trolls are out and still are too stupid to realize their guy made an ass of himself.
yelling your answers doesn't make them more correct.
Even the FOX people are now saying that Keryr won the debate. Mort K. says Kerry won, Fred Barnes the Pres "at least tied" .. ha tied = lost
kos is down 
Why hasn't anyone brought up the fact when he talked about the Supreme Court appointment, Bush said he hoped that they would all vote for him. My mouth just dropped on that.
mine too. I was thinking, pander much?
stinky, that isn't what the dred scott decision was about.
Actually, Bush was right on this, at least in part. You're right that Scott was denied standing on racial grounds, but the big story with *Dred Scott* was Taney's opinion that Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in the territories--and that was based [albeit with godawful reasoning] on the Fifth Amendment's protection for property.
Dred Scott was the decision upon which "separate but equal" was determined to be the law of the land until Brown V. Board of education decided "separate but equal" was inherently unequal. I'm no American History scholar, but even I know that.
Bzzzt.
Obviously this was Bush's lame attempt to connect with St. Louis voters. After all, the courthouse where Dred Scott started his long journey into night is right across the street from the Arch (I have pictures). Um...Kerry's research was better.
CNN poll Kerry-83 Bush 13
MSNBC Kerry 79-Bush 21
Keep up the good work!!!
Feudal Puppet, you could not have picked a more apt name given your limited intellect and your support of a leader who exhibits his complete ignorance of Dred Scott.
I guess Rush must have failed to tell you what to think.
that's what i thought too, not sure. he said he hoped they vote for him. i was thinking. . .5 of them, anyway.
arggghhhhh, man hughes on fox.
whew... couldn't change the channel quick enough.
It's a repeat of the VP debate. Chimpy needed a home run and he didn't get it.
Dred Scott was an enemy combatant, if I recall my Constitutional Law course correctly.
got wood?
go look at the front page of foxnews.com.
by posting an image like that, they're saying that Kerry wiped the floor with Bush...
and that's from fox, baby...
Dred Scott was the decision upon which "separate but equal" was determined to be the law of the land until Brown V. Board of education decided "separate but equal" was inherently unequal.
Actually Plessy v. Ferguson was the case that decided that.
The Dred Scott decision held that all blacks, slaves or free, were not citizens. It also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus technically permitting slavery in every state.
Fox poll- 30% Bush, 70% Kerry
and didn't he finish up with something like "the constitution doesn't deal with stuff like equality"?
The "Mystery of The Bulge" story about what that strange rectangular outline on his back underneath Pres. Bush's jacket that has been swirling around the internet since the first Prez Debate has finally made it to the mainstream media:
Elizabeth Bumiller, of all people has this new NY Times front page article, titled -- you guessed it -- "The Mystery of The Bulge".
the big story with *Dred Scott* was Taney's opinion that Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in the territories--and that was based [albeit with godawful reasoning] on the Fifth Amendment's protection for property.
Kind of a "strict constructionist" decision, wasn't it?
I assume Bush is opposed to Brown vs. Board of Education, too.
If he is, he's a racist.
If he isn't, he's a flip-flopper.
My apologies - I was thinking of Plessy v. Ferguson, which is basically a defense of "state's rights".
Kerry didn't even comment on the dred scott decision. Is he pro-slavery?
The Dredd Scott decision furthered the 'ownership society.' I would think that Bush would be in favor of it.
St Louis Post Dispatch online poll at URL below. Please help.
Oh geez, pumpkin head on MSNBC making nonsensical.. He's so suprised American's have good questions, and know what's at stake in this election.
Idiot.
All Your Slave Jobs Are Belong To Bush!
Kerry didn't even comment on the dred scott decision. Is he pro-slavery?
joe0
Yes, of course he is. All Democrats are. Didn't you know?
"Ferry droned on and on with the same tired talking points he sounded like.... Bush in the last debate."
You thought he was THAT BAD?
My husband says Bush doesn't lie; he just spins.
I was chicken and couldn't watch but I read the comments. What was Kerry's statement involving 1% of something? My husband says that was unbelievable in that he just couldn't believe it.
He's a Democrat who will vote for Kerry, but he's Mr. Practicality and doesn't believe Bush has been lying to us for the last 3 1/2 years!
I'll Lincoln your Douglass, Tom!
Love Tim
(like jib/jab without the sincerity)
NICE
The trolls are thick tonight; then so is there fear.
Bwahahahahaha!!!
moore's on maher now!
According to Factcheck.org, the website that Cheney tried to reference during his debate (but couldn't remember that it was a dot org and not a dot com), Bush does IN FACT own part of a timber company:
http://factcheck.org/
article.asp...@DocID=265.html
President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)
Vice President Cheney and his wife Lynne qualify as "small business owners" for 2003 because 3.5% of the total income reported on their tax returns was business income from Mrs. Cheney's consulting business. She reported $44,580 in business income on Schedule C, nearly all of it from fees paid to her as a director of the Reader's Digest . But giving the Cheneys a tax cut didn't stimulate any hiring; she reported zero employees.
Oh my God folks!! I'm devastated! What a disasterous evening!!
No, not that, Kery won big,
Little Rock Central got beat! AHHHH! I don't know if I can go on.
Bush did better than the first time but then again when you set the bar THAT freakin low, it would be a challenge, even for Bush, to go anywhere but up. Based on that Kerry set his bar extremely high (where the President should be ) and still KICKED ASS!!! Bush either didn't answer, bullshitted, lied (some of which Kerry caught him on) or flubbed most of his answers. Now, it's the spin cycle.
i'm a kerry supporter, but i have to admit that shrub was somewhat less awful than he was in the first debate.
That was probably my absolute favorite moment of the debate. Bush uses one of the rare moments when a large amount of the country is listening to him to take a decisive stance... against slavery.
WAY TO GO GEORGE! SLAVERY IS BAD! I'M SO GLAD GOD CHOSE YOU TO BECOME PRESIDENT.
What an idiot.
Go home, pigfucking troll bitches.
I think Big John Sodomized Lil' Georgie.
Dred Scott? What the fuck was that?
That was probably my absolute favorite moment of the debate. Bush uses one of the rare moments when a large amount of the country is listening to him to take a decisive stance... against slavery.
WAY TO GO GEORGE! SLAVERY IS BAD! I'M SO GLAD GOD CHOSE YOU TO BECOME PRESIDENT.
What an idiot.
Story of tonight: Kerry tired to save some modicum of honor left for the office of Presidency.
He didn’t want to destroy it by destroying Bush. That is called a class act.
Don't forget to go vote in our buddies new poll. It is at the top of the opening page. Besure to vote for President John Kerry!
http://www.hoffmania.blogspot.com/
i'm a kerry supporter, but i have to admit that shrub was somewhat less awful than he was in the first debate.
He managed to not drool on himself. How could he have not been as awful as in the first debate?
Damn - now it made it to the NY times:
The Mystery of the Bulge in the Jacket
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: October 9, 2004
ASHINGTON, Oct. 8 - What was that bulge in the back of President Bush's suit jacket at the presidential debate in Miami last week?
According to rumors racing across the Internet this week, the rectangular bulge visible between Mr. Bush's shoulder blades was a radio receiver, transmitting answers from an offstage counselor into a hidden presidential earpiece. The prime suspect was Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's powerful political adviser.
Advertisement
When the online magazine Salon published an article about the rumors on Friday - the day of the second presidential debate, in St. Louis - the speculation reached such a pitch that White House and campaign officials found themselves inundated with calls.
First they said that pictures showing the bulge might have been doctored. But then, when the bulge turned out to be clearly visible in the television footage of the evening, they offered a different explanation.
"There was nothing under his suit jacket," said Nicolle Devenish, the Bush campaign's communications director. "It was most likely a rumpling of that portion of his suit jacket, or a wrinkle in the fabric."
Ms. Devenish could not explain why the "rumpling" was in a rectangular shape.
Campaign and White House officials said that the bulge was not from a bulletproof vest; they said Mr. Bush was not wearing one.
They said the bulge was definitely not a receiver.
Bush could have saved the fricken election if he had admitted to one mkistake. That would have turned people's percepotions around. If I were him, I would have admitted to disbanding the Iraqi army. It's a given that that was a mistake (in hindsight), but most American's would say, "Anybody coulda made that kistake."
Bush had it wityhin his grasp to save his own ass on that question. All he needed was to show some humility.
My husband and I are both lawyers. We nearly fell on the floor when Bush invoked the Dred Scott decision. What a calculated and heinous reference.
tjb, Plessy v. Ferguson was separate but equal, Dred Scott was no negro has any rights that a white man is bound to recognize, and YES to someone above, it was a case of strict construction. The Constitution permitted the ownership of slaves until it was removed by the Emancipation Proclamation and then ratified by the 13th Amendment.
did anyone else notice that kerry called people by name a lot and bush never did? if "nicki" wasn't going to vote for kerry before, i'm sure she will now. it's not really important. i just thought it was a nice touch.
The Dred Scott decision is confusing because all of the Justices filed seperate opinions. Six of them ruled that Scott had no standing to sue because he had never been free despite his "sojourns" on free soil.
Taney's statement that Scott had no right to sue because he was black and no blacks had any rights that whites "were bound to respect" was Taney's own opinion, not(necessarily) the opinion of the majority.
Anyway, the decision sucked.
Blink!
href="http://tinyurl.com/4q8vn">Blink!
href="http://tinyurl.com/4q8vn">Blink!
Kerry did good but could have answered the last question (to Bush re: 3 mistakes) better. He should have said that it's a simple question but Bush cannot admit mistakes because he's like a little spoiled kid. Then Kerry should have named 3 mistakes made by Bush: Iraq, Tora Bora, and tax cuts to the rich. And he should have ended with zinging Bush on not firing the appointments he's made and was not happy with.
Sorry about my typing, need a new kb
I am convinced, especially after watching Bush in action again tonight, that anyone voting for this bumbling moron is either braindead or on some illicit substance.
My good god. He's a fucking idiot.
The decision was certainly based at least in part on the Constitutional guarantee of property rights:
"But there are two clauses in the Constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government then formed.
"One of these clauses reserves to each of the thirteen States the right to import slaves until the year 1808, if it thinks proper. And by the other provision the States pledge themselves to each other to maintain the right of property of the master, by delivering up to him any slave who may have escaped from his service, and be found within their respective territories."
Time Magazine: Presidential Race Deadlocked: Kerry Now Beats Bush on "Likeability"; Kerry Recaptures Large Lead Among Female Voters, 50%-38%; 68% Say Vice Presidential Debate Had No Impact
Jennifer, I'm a lawyer and I had the same reaction. First I thought he was insane, then I thought, y'know, they're right, he's wearing an earpiece.
STOP. STOP NOW. This is from the Encyclopedia Brittanica:
According to Taney, Congress had no power to forbid slavery in the territories for two reasons: 1) the Constitution gave it only very limited power to legislate for the territories; and 2) slaves were property, and property owners were protected by the due process of law clause of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
There's more than enough real stupidity in Bush's utterances tonight to give us fuel. Don't give freepers the opportunity to obscure the debate results by attacking one of the few times Bush has been correct on history.
-
Dunno what's so confusin'.
Dred Scott was a nigger!
Wholly shit!
"There was nothing under his suit jacket," said Nicolle Devenish, the Bush campaign's communications director. "It was most likely a rumpling of that portion of his suit jacket, or a wrinkle in the fabric."
Ms. Devenish could not explain why the "rumpling" was in a rectangular shape.
Holy fuck. Now the Times is suspicious!
Yeah, compared to debate 1, Bush improved.
And I said he wouldn't. I was wrong.
but still, setting the bar by the first debate, gives a whole new meaning to "soft bigotry of low expectations."
I think Kerry is cleaning up in these debates. Bush has been running from the public and accountability for four years. I think these questions prove, he can't hide.
But what was up with Dred Scott? My guess is, it's the only Supreme Court decision he's ever heard of, and he wanted to look like he was 'smart' too, just like the Senator.
Toast, he is. Toast with marmalade.
....hmmmm....marmalade.......
Kerry won but Bush was much better that in the first debate. I think that they have managed to tune his meds. Of course, he still repeated himself numerous times.
man we are just thick with trolls tonight eh?
Must mean that Kerry wiped the floor with the tweaker girly-man
Jesus, the Dred Scott decision is such a great example of why strict Constitutional applications are wrong that I'm astonished he even brought it up. Reality check: the Declaration of Independence declares all men created equal; the Constitution never mentions the word slavery but enshires the 3/5ths rule for slaveowners. Pre-Civil War court decisions dealing with slavery should be avoided like the plague by people in favor of strict constructionism!
Near the end of the comedy Soapdish, if memory serves, a flamboyant soap opera star who has slid down the fame spiral is reduced to performing a dinner theater production of Death of a Salesman. As he belts out Arthur Miller's dialogue as it were his ticket to a career comeback, a woman trying to chew her meal squawks with irritation, "What's with the yelling?"
That is a question that will be echoed by millions of Americans tonight watching President Bush's Pagliacci performance. It's one thing to cut off your opponent, but to cut off Charlie Gibson in mid-question, holler at the audience, and heave your shoulders with laughter at your own weak jests--this doesn't strike me as a good gameplan to convince swing voters of your sanity.
My provisional opinion, contingent upon no unforseen events altering the current dynamics (i.e, a meteor crashing through the ceiling of the auditorium), is that Kerry is grinding Bush into such fine pencil shavings that even Peggy Noonan will not be able to sweep him up and make him whole.
-James Wolcott
Hey, Dana Priest of WaPo is stronger than dirt on PBS this evening. Giving Bush heck...
News alert: Ronald Reagan is still dead.
Slaves freed, 1 January 1863
Dred Scott decision, resolved, 1857.
Kerry/Shrub 2nd debate, 8 October 2004.
Let's try to keep up here, folks. Whole lot o' history to deal with.
"Kerry didn't even comment on the dred scott decision. Is he pro-slavery?"
Uh, No. JK prefers to deal with real issues in this century, not the 19th century. JK was also smart enough to recognize Bushy's comment for what it was - he neef to show off the elementary geography and history knowledge that earned him his BS at Yale.
Why hasn't anyone brought up the fact when he talked about the Supreme Court appointment, Bush said he hoped that they would all vote for him. My mouth just dropped on that.
Yeah, pretty remarkable. But Bush's meaning was that he wanted potential SCOTUS justices to vote for him on November 2nd.
So Bush didn't make a complete fool of himself again. Big deal. It's pathetic that we have a president in whom the best we can hope for is that he remembers his middle school U.S. history. Which he mangled badly despite the fact that he was likely coached on this very topic immediately before the debate.
The real achievement of this debate is that the American people saw once again that Kerry has the mettle to be our president. That's the story.
concur. swimming beyond the shark nets.
trying to appear an intellectual. he swam into the shark.
glub..blub.
Most of the time when Bush watched, or blinked, as Kerry was speaking, Bush looked like a schoolboy listening to the teacher.
Niggers have no property rights. What's the confusion.
Fielding Mellish, we're not saying Bush was wrong the Dred Scott was bad, but how does it answer what kind of judge he would appoint. He said they misinterpreted the Constitution and they did not.
Who let the trolls out anyway? MSNBC???
'They said the bulge was definitely not a receiver.'
...It's a tracking device, in case Bush wanders off some place. Can't lose the President, now, that'd be bad...
the bulge
someone at Kos found another pic of Bush driving a truck, showing the bulge. Looks like a back brace.
Which would explain the stiffness too
LOL!! Now you can definately tell that Bush won when you moonbats start going off on tangents like this 
Kerry won this debate, it was tougher than before, i grant you.
Kerry won tonight because his answers were clear, and they made sense.
Bush would respond to questions by denying what was asked, then he'd dance around a little and not really answer.
He wasn't as tough on Kerry as he needed to be for a TKO.
Kerry looked calm and forceful, very presidential.
Kerry wins by a smaller margin than last time, but still wins.
The constitution, until the ratification of the 13th amendment, implicitly recognized slavery as legal. The apportionment of representatives in the House accorded the status of a slave as equal to 2/3 of a person in counting population, in the unamended text. It took the 14th amendment to fix that.
God knows, this has never been a perfect country. Thank God there have usually been patriots who recognize that fact. John Kerry is one.
I think if Bush would have just outright said Dredd Scott was based on racism instead of the Constitution he would have scored and made a point about putting opinions into law.
As it is, he wanted an example of "judicial activism" that wouldn't be (a) popular and supported by most americans, or (b) a current example of right-wing opportunism. He had to go back a-ways.
Conservative media bias...MSNBC has Brokaw talking to two voters, one on each side. He starts by asking the Kerry person what Bush's best moment was. Then he asks the Bush person what Kerry's best moment was, then adds, "or did he have one?" Of course, given that opening, what do you think she said?
And, ps: Remember Kerry equating the number of Missouri troops now in Iraq to the third largest 'coalition' nation? Nice bit of local comparison, right?
Well, here's Shrub's rationale for dragging poor Dred Scott from his grave:
"1858 Dred Scott dies of tuberculosis and is buried in St. Louis. He was buried in Wesleyan Cemetery at what is now the intersection of Grand and Laclede Avenues in St. Louis (now part of the campus of St. Louis University). In 1867, Wesleyan cemetary closed and the bodies were dis-interred and re-buried at other sites. Dred Scott's body was moved to an unmarked grave in Section 1, Lot No. 177, Calvary Cemetery, in north St. Louis County. In 1957 a marker was placed on Dred Scott's grave which reads:
"DRED SCOTT BORN ABOUT 1799 DIED SEPT. 17, 1858
DRED SCOTT SUBJECT OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1857 WHICH DENIED CITIZENSHIP TO THE NEGRO, VOIDED THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE ACT, BECAME ONE OF THE EVENTS THAT RESULTED IN THE CIVIL WAR""
Not quite the same I guess.
For me, the Dred Scott thing was like the steroids moment or the man on Mars deal. It was one of those times when Bush gave us a glimmer of what the world looks like through his eyes.
Terry Gilliam's got nothin' on that guy when it comes to warped landscapes.
did anyone else notice that kerry called people by name a lot and bush never did? if "nicki" wasn't going to vote for kerry before, i'm sure she will now. it's not really important. i just thought it was a nice touch.
Actually, I think it was a very big deal. I noticed it, too.
Bush referred, once, to "this lady over here."
Kerry referred to specific questioners, by name. My wife mentioned that Clinton could do the same thing.
I don't think Poppy was any good with names, either.
Bush is toast.
(...mmmmmmm....marmalade.....)
My head exploded when chimpy did his Dred Scott thing. If that decision wasn't pimped as "strict constructionism" under the constitution as it then existed, then why did there need to be a thirteenth amendment?
It is truly depressing that (a) he is the preznit and (b) he might get four more years.
both the St.Louis Post-Dispatch and the CNN Poll have Kerry at 80%+
I don't think it means much at this point in the news cycle
We can sit here and discuss for hours, or at least until Atrios posts a new link, the intricacies of Dred Scott, but most Americans do not. Bush didn't seem unpresidential and as hard as it is for us to understand, that's enough for a lot of 'undecideds' to vote for him.
People, its not just online polls.
we need to be sending EMAILS and LETTERS and Phonecalls too.
get on it, I emailed Larry King and CBS news already, tried to log in to WaPo but somehting is screwed with the cookies so Im leaving that for later.
LETTERS AND E-MAILS FOLKS
a) I thought Bush got destroyed tonight; and
b) IAAL, and the Dred Scott case was most certainly at least partly decided on property rights. The logical framework of the decision was:
1) no black, free slave, former slave, or family of slaves is a citizen as defined by the Constitution and thus they have no right as people to sue for anything in American; and further
2) slaves were personal property (the first part is necessary for the second)
See URL above if you want to read Taney's execrable opinion. It's short, here are the key paragraphs:
4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.
6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.
LOL!! Now you can definately tell that Bush won when you moonbats start going off on tangents like this
Avestus | Email | Homepage | 10.08.04 - 11:25 pm | #
So, what, we should be discussing NASCAR or Brittany's new fiance? Pardon us for being political history geeks. Just cause you don't understand why it's a big deal...
oh, and Taney's Dred Scott opinion is about as pure of an example of "strict constructionism" as you're going to find.
both the St.Louis Post-Dispatch and the CNN Poll have Kerry at 80%+
I don't think it means much at this point in the news cycle
The Sunday morning bobbleheads will be talking about nothing but this.
OT: Why did Haloscan try to connect to my PC's port 8080 when I posted? A quick look at my logs shows it always does that. Hmmm.
Check out this lead from the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush smirked and winked and chuckled to himself. He jumped from his stool, chopped at the air and interrupted the debate moderator. As he fought to keep his emotions in check in a testy, personal debate with Sen. John Kerry, the president asserted, "That answer almost made me scowl
Most of St. Louis isn't too proud of this case either...well, I'm not...Dred Scott lost.
Did he do that to pander to one of the most segregated cities in the nation???
Now I am really pissed about it.
Trent Lott must be crushed now that he knows that a second-term Bush won't appoint him to the Supreme Court.
John Kerry has not featured Dred Scott, Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver, Rosa Parks or Booker T. Washington in his campaign.
Now tell me how he expects to earn the nigger vote. Tell me!
re article on Bush wearing wire in Miami. Assuming it is not transmitter, perhaps Josh Marshall was correct in musing about Bush not taking a physical this year. Does Bush have some type of injury (he has fallen off his bike several times) that requires electrical stimulation for pain relief (i.e. a TENS unit) and he needed it because he would have to stand for 90 minutes????
http://www.kotv.com
Tulsa knuckle-draggers have bush leading in cbs affiliate's poll.
VOTE! (HotButton lower right)
LOL!! Now you can definately tell that Bush won when you moonbats start going off on tangents like this
Bush is getting slaughtered by Kerry in every single online poll, on CSPAN. Fox News pundoids called it for Kerry. Wake up and smell the fucking coffee, clown, your chimpeor is toast.
Good night now.
At the tme, before the 13th 14th 15th amendments, actually the constitution DID kinda include slaves as property, 3/5 rule and all - it was strict construcionism. Which is why we need "activist judges" to defend our liberty from congressional meddling.
Oooh. Joe Scarborough is out with a back problem.
After the first debate Cheney must have told him to go fuck himself, and Joe actually tried.
Okay, the read question about the Dred Scott case is this: is there a single African-American, clearly the group at which this comment was aimed at, who wouldn't see through the ludricrousness of this statement? Not black myself, I can only guess that black people know very well that strict Constitutionalism has been used for almost two centuries to deny them full rights. But then, white liberals have historically been wrong about what black people want or think--other opinions on the impact of this comment on the black undecided vote?
he neef? Cripes, these guys have tired me out. Should have said "his need..." (meaning bushy of course)
she who must not be named, his point was kind of fuzzy, but i got the impression that he was citing dred scott as an example of a decision not based on "personal opinion", but a "strict interpretation" of the constitution. in my opinion he is correct about that, but it is a bad example if you are advocating "strict interpretation". i think he also believes that the decision somehow upheld the rights of blacks. it was a really bizarre moment, overall.
It will be a comfort to all the slaves that Bush won't nominate a justice that would keep them in servitude.
RMJ - toast and marmalade.
Terry Gilliam's got nothin' on that guy when it comes to warped landscapes.
That's for damn sure. Look at his attempt to paint himself as the environmental candidate.
Off-road diesel? It was the Clinton administration that regulated it. Bush Co. wants to give incentives to polluters to emit a bit less.
LOL!! Now you can definately tell that Bush won when you moonbats start going off on tangents like this
Avestus
You can definitely tell that Kerry won when trolls reeking of desperation call us "moonbats." Hey, try "dhimmicrats" next. I always get a big laugh out of that one.
-
They worked on the Dread Scott thing all week with Bush:
"No not Judge Dredd!! You stupid chi...sigh... lets try it again "Dread Scott"... Yes, Scott, just like that guy who talks for you..."
The TV media is spread-legged for their BushCorp master tonight.
Fucking depressing.
Weird theater. It's all happening in a dull-roar vacuum. Lies and spin with no conviction or enthusiasm. Inappropriate laughter.
Will someone please ask what the fuck "battlin' green eye-shade" was supposed to mean? Or any of the other nonsensical statements?
THIS DEBATE WAS NOT A FUCKING TIE.
Peace...
I have a new nickname for the Twig, the Shrub, the Smirk, the Chimp...
It's: Little Blinky.
This helped Kerry because it's only undecideds that really matter and they are undecided because they don't want Bush and aren't sure about Kerry. Kerry continues to look like someone you can trust as President. He was clear, he had good ideas, his judgement seems solid. Kerry will pick up points from this. He did a good job of discounting the Repug crap.
fyi, josh marshall is on cspan
Stinky -- Actually Plessy v. Ferguson is the decision that established separate but equal.
Dude...whatever happened to those "moonbat" t-shirts someone was printing up? I want one of those. And on the back, I want it to say, "Is interested in Constitutional history and how it pertains to modern decisions."
Just so folks know what a moonbat is.
Josh on C-SPAN? ?? !!
First Draft debateblogging here.
Tena was on fire tonight!
A.
I don't think Poppy was any good with names, either.
But he could write a hell of a thank you note.
Whew. Just caught a second of Larry King (and that's enough for me)... thought Bob Kerrey and Racicot were going to bust through the screen at each other.
The 'battling green eyeshade' comment was a rather archaic reference to accountants who, at least in old movies, wore green eyeshades a lot for some reason (and also sleeve garters)... essentially he was saying in a not-very-coherent way (big surprise) that they were arguing about money numbers.
George Bush: I don't favor slavery. What more do you want?
Pentagon: Vote for Bush, That's an Order
YOKOTA AIR BASE, Japan - Capt. Scott D. Stewart, a 20-year veteran of the Air Force, remembers that voting on American military bases was always a low priority, with registration seen as "a free-for-all, every man for himself."
But this time, Captain Stewart, a 40-year-old Floridian, dropped his presidential ballot in the mail in late September. This time, the Pentagon wants 100 percent voter participation here and at many American bases around the world.
The target may be impossible, but the advocates command attention: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Through e-mail messages, spots
on military radio and television and orders down the chain of command, the message has reached bases like this one, a conglomeration of 1960's beige and brown government buildings surrounding a military air strip 30 miles west of Tokyo.
"It's very rare that you see a four-star general getting on television, telling soldiers to register and vote," said Captain Stewart, a base security officer assigned to help run the voter registration campaign, referring to General Myers. "It's been a huge, huge push to get everyone registered. It was coming straight down from the secretary of defense."
Racicot being bitch-slapped by Bob Kerry -- just kicked his butt -- mild-mannered Larry King cut them off (a hint of how hard that rented mule was being whipped)
I cant believe theres not much talk of junior being drugged out here.
Clearly he was doped up.His grinding of the teeth and his erratic movements,he couldnt sit still.He had so much energy it was unreal.It explains his zealousness to attack and his forcefull tone of voice.
Drug addicts are also very arrogant and junior was at his most arrogant tonite.
I demand a post debate drug test!
Is there any way to get verification of this?
Atrios - You didn't really think that Bush for one nano-second would actually know what a supreme court decision handed down in the 1840's really said or even meant did you?
At the tme, before the 13th 14th 15th amendments, actually the constitution DID kinda include slaves as property, 3/5 rule and all - it was strict construcionism. Which is why we need "activist judges" to defend our liberty from congressional meddling.
I started screaming that at the tv when he brought up DS. Bush can't help knowing what the original Constitution said, it's hard work reading it. Besides, Elwood, do you realized how unpatriotic it is to point out an American mistake??? Geez, it's like you're inviting the terrorists over for dinner.
Fielding Mellish, we're not saying Bush was wrong the Dred Scott was bad, but how does it answer what kind of judge he would appoint. He said they misinterpreted the Constitution and they did not.
She who must be obeyed
I agree with you that Bush was wrong on the basis of invoking the Scott case. However, Atrios' post was:
Dred Scott wasn't based on property rights. It was based on racism.
P.S. are you the Ursula Andress version?
-
I'm proud to say that Big John and I graduated from the same law school - he had a most bewildered look on his face when Bush said he wouldn't appoint an activist judge like those nasty .... er Dred Scott justices. Someone upthread got it right - at the time Dred Scott was strict constructionist - maybe that's why Kerry was confused - he knew Bush was really going for the Roe vs. Wade justices but wouldn't step over that ledge and opted for the anti-slavery position..
If there is an afterlife I hope Lincoln kicks W's ass forever in eternity
I love when he gets those kinds of questions that stump him bad. He turns into Don Knotts trying to get the bullet out of his pocket so he can shoot himself in the foot. Of the myriad of possible examples, how the heck did he ever come up with Dred Scott?
Exact quote for those who are interested:
BUSH: 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 a 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.
And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.
And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.
Thank you.
Taney was a strict constructionist. The Constitution not only permitted slavery, it gave masters 3/5 of a vote for every slave owned.
OT - Has anybody seen this (link below)? I've heard that maybe no jetliner had hit the Pentagon...but, this website puts it in perspective.... can someone explain more?
Need help understanding this. Thanks.
Folks, i think the "more than polls" guy has a point. The online polls are showing less real gains after each debate.
we need to bolster our case with letters to the editor, and emails to TV news channels, and the WashPost, NYT, etc.
Online polls by themselves aren't enough i'm afraid.
get those emails going.
This helped Kerry because it's only undecideds that really matter and they are undecided because they don't want Bush and aren't sure about Kerry.
Good point.
Bush is flogging his base like a bad dog, but -- as far as I know -- they can only vote once. He didn't do much to expand his appeal tonight.
I'm still disappointed, though. Kerry could have taken him out tonight, with very little risk.
He won't nominate a justice who would support the Dred Scott decision?
Well, OK then!
As I told my wife in real time, when you are a chimp, never turn the discussion to LAW when you're debating a lawyer. Predictably, Chimpy blew it. Last week we learned how he got through school. Tonight, we learned what he didn't learn.
EARPIECE-CODPIECE...
TO THINK A PRETZAL COULD HAVE BEEN A WEAPON OF LESSER DESTRUCTION?
I JUST DONT LIKE THE CREEPY BASTARD.
KERRY LOOKS LIKE AN UNDERTAKER WHY CANT HE JUST BURY BUSH ONCE AND FOR ALL?
OT - Has anybody seen this (link below)? I've heard that maybe no jetliner had hit the Pentagon...but, this website puts it in perspective.... can someone explain more?
Need help understanding this. Thanks.
I heard Bush's reference to Dred Scott case as a two-pronger shout-out to black religious voice; he cited judges who forbid "under god" in pledge, as first instance of what he looks for in judges. second, dred scott. I took this as clumsy, idiotic Karl Rove-ism toward black religious vote, which is one portion of black vote appealable by Bush. maybe this reading is too carfty by half...
Taney decided the Constitution allowed slavery because the constitution allowed slavery.
from Art 1. s. , clause 3
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
All other persons are slaves.
From I, s. 9, clause 1
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
This is saying slave importation shall not be prohibited until 1808, but can be taxed per slave.
Art. IV, s. 2, cl 3
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
This saying if a slave escapes to another state, he must be returned.
Taney was strictly interpreting the Constitution when he said it allowed slavery. He was being a racist activist judge when he said Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories.
I've heard that maybe no jetliner had hit the Pentagon...but, this website puts it in perspective.... can someone explain more?
Yes: It's crazy ass bullshit that you shouldn't waste your time reading.
Is my time up yet?
It's funny that only when Bush fails to implode in the second debate do we find out how badly the pundits really thought he did in the first debate.
It's kind of like when you lose a little weight and people suddenly come over and tell you: Boy, you were really, really fat before!
Hunh. Thanks for not having mentioned it previously...
>OT - Has anybody seen this (link
>below)? I've heard that maybe no
>jetliner had hit the Pentagon...but,
>this website puts it in
>perspective.... can someone explain
>more?
>
>Need help understanding this. Thanks.
This stupid conspiracy theory really pisses me off. Not only does it do a disservice to the many people who died at the Pentagon, it also gives Bush & Co. far more credit than they deserve... it tries to show that they are shrewd and cunning and brilliant strategists who made one fatal mistake when the truth is that they're not shrewd, cunning or brilliant and the entire four years has been one colossal screw-up.
The only conspiracy, if you can call it that, was that nobody in charge was paying attention and nobody wanted to.
Maybe this was corrected for "Stinky" way upthread, maybe not.
Plessy v. Ferguson was the "separate but equal" case. Overturned by Brown v. BOE in '54.
Dred Scott, since he was "property" had no standing to sue. Second, as his master's "property," he could be taken out of a slave state and into a "free" state and, yet, remain his master's "property."
That's what, as Bush likes to call 'em, "shtrehkt cunshtruckshunllests," will do on the Supreme Court.
And, of course, it was a bunch of activist, librul Justices who (unanimously) decided Brown, thus (officially) making segregation in education unlawful throughout the land.
__
Bush did totally fumble the Dred Scott reference but I am not sure your criticisms are completely valid Atrios.
Wasn't the so called property rights of slaveowners moving to MO invoked by critics of the MO compromise? They did not look at their slaves as human beings but as property that they owned and could not be constitutionally deprived of. Is this racism? Hell yes. But they did not argue for the expansion of slavery on the theme of racial superiority (racism), they argued based on property rights.
By the way - Dred Scott was brought up not by accident but because the rabid anti-abortion activists see themselves as modern day abolitionists. I know a lot of these folks and they are the most stubborn defenders of Bush. They equate defense of legalized abortion with defense of slavery, arguing that human beings cannot be property, therefore pregnant women cannot claim the right to choose to do what they wish with their "property" i.e. their "unborn child".
It is good to know your opponent and this is the real reason for the Dred Scott reference. It is code to the anti-abortion forces that in answer to the question about who Bush would pick as a judge, he would PICK AN ANTI-ABORTION JUDGE.
Thanks Old Hat... did you go to the website? No. There's nothing to read there!
IT'S A VIDEO SHOWING NO EVIDENCE OF A JETLINER.
I wonder how many other landmark legal cases this idiot has wronge?
It's a fricken shame nobody asked him what the bible's 9th commandment was or what rights the 3rd amendment to the constitution covered?
What a bozo!
MYOB'
.
Speedy-
I think he was referring to the green visors that accountants wear in casinos and old gambler movies. Still makes not one fucking bit of sense, but maybe the chimp watched "The Sting" right before the debate...he's probably still trying to figure the trick ending and that's why he stumbled so much tonight. Can'
t...hold...two...thoughts...in...brain...same...ti
me....!!
It's worse than that. Dred Scott was based on "strict constructionalism"--under the text and tradition of the Constitution, black people were not persons. Scott had no right to the federal courts.
What Bush was claiming to say was the exact opposite of the Dred Scott case.
Strict constructionalists wrote the Dred Scott decision.
If Dred Scott came before this Court, the Republican majority would decide it the exact same way.
Scalia would write the opinion. And Thomas would concur.
is this art bell's website?
Even though Bush wasnt as horrible as the last debate,he didnt convince anyone to vote for him that hadnt already decided to vote Bush. He has to get some undecideds and tonites debate aint goin to get it done.
Can someone please tell me where I can find the fact Kerry stated that the top 1% Americans got an $89 billion tax cut last year? I can't find it and my husband doesn't believe it.
I was howling at that answer for another reason.
He was asked about the supreme court and all he could come up with was Dred Scott: I'm against slavery.
What a courageous stand. It's such hard work to be president.
Old Hat: Re:11:43 probably not worth the reading time 'til the 'lection's over with a Kerry President but...
Sick.Fucks.Everyone.Of.Them.
[pedant]
hlm - Dred Scott, since he was "property" had no standing to sue
actually, it was he's not a citizen, therefore he a) has no standing to sue and b) can be considered property.
[/pedant]
Brian In Vegas,
Can you sell me some of that shee-it?
This thread might also make my head explode.
The constitution permitted slavery. That's why it was amended.
Taney's decision was a big deal because he held that subsequently living in free states didn't make Dred Scott free. That meant slavery followed the flag, and calling territories or new states "free" ones didn't mean shite if you were a slave taken into them.
The decision's pandering to the Slave Power neatly parallels the modern GOP's pandering to Confederates in the same states.
Trent Lott understands this well.
Burbling Bob Kerry calls the debate a draw, while Pataki says Bush hit a home run.
Why is Bob Kerry admired by anyone?
Make that "got $89 billion in tax cuts last year."
Safire (probably) and Will (certainly) have to go off on Dred Scott Sunday. They are the history geeks (aside from Kerns Goodwin who is a pro) of the media and will be compelled to point out how this makes exactly the opposite point of the one Bush intended.
> Why is Bob Kerry admired by anyone?
Why is Bush?
Pol---try factcheck.org. I'm sure they have it.
Gee, and here my husband and I thought that the kind of judges President Bush wanted to appoint were the kind who died over a hundred years ago.
Also, FYI, Dredd Scott was 1856-7.
CNN is starting a debate between Paul Begala and Ann Coulter.
Why do news stations allow that disgraceful woman on legitimate shows? I'm switching to Fox. FOX! I'd rather watch Karl Rove on Fox (yes, their objective sole panelist at the moment right now is Karl) than that woman.
Ack! Mann Coulter in CNN !
Why is Bob Kerry admired by anyone?
He nailed Debra Winger when she was still fuckable.
IT'S A VIDEO SHOWING NO EVIDENCE OF A JETLINER.
No, it's not "evidence" that an airplane magically disappeared and the Israelis and the Freemasons and the Bushes and the Saudis all conspired together to launch a missile at the Pentagon and trick you into thinking that there was an airplane that wasn't al Qaeda times Pakistan divided by Halliburton to the power of QA93552A-H4 and blah blah blah but you know what?
Take this crackpot horseshit somewhere else.
73-27 Kerry/bush on MSNBC just now.....
Even worse. Karl Rove (the devil) is on faux news
Dred Scott was based on property rights. Anyone here actaully read the decision instead of read about it:
"Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States, in every state that might desire it, for twenty years. And the government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time if the slave escapes from his owner. That is done in plain words -- too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description. The only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights."
The racism is in the application of property rights to people. But of course, Bush's point was that judges shouldn't rule based on their personal opinions.
And even if it was solely racism, the point still stands. Taney's personal opinions (the racism) motivated the decision, but he couched it as a property right.
I'll go back to watching you all spin now.
THEY CALL ME PASTABAGEL
Can someone please tell me where I can find the fact Bush stated that the top 1% Americans got an $89 billion tax cut last year?
Wow! You're kidding!
Yikes, Stann Coulter's on CNN talking about spreadin' freedom through the Middle East (no doubt by forcibly converting Muslims to Christianity OR ELSE).
smalfish, we don't talk much about bush being drugged because we take it for granted, at least i do. he is obviously a burnt out speed freak. the only thing more annoying than a burnt out speed freak is a religious burnt out speed freak.
Dred Scott was 1857. In his inauguration speech James Buchanan (formerly the worst president ever) admonished everyone to obey the about to be announced Supreme Court decision, which would supposedly settle the slavery controversy.
The decision came out shortly thereafter.
Coulter's on CNN....
MY EYES! MY EYES!!!!!!!
Avetis said: "Story of tonight: Kerry tired to save some modicum of honor left for the office of Presidency.
He didn’t want to destroy it by destroying Bush. That is called a class act."
I completely agree. Kerry has been trying to preserve the dignity of this country and its institutions throughout this campaign. So glad you said this.
Can someone please tell me where I can find the fact Bush stated that the top 1% Americans got an $89 billion tax cut last year?
OH MAH GOD Coulter is REALLY on Indian crack tonight
Dred Scott was based on property rights.
Black people being the property, you stupid fuck.
Don't forget... Ann Coulter knows how to talk to Liberals. She says so in her book. I haven't read her book, so I'm just going to assume based on what she does in interviews that the way she recommends talking to Liberals is to lie and insult.
The more I think about it...the more I think he may really support the racist decision of that time which was against Dred Scott.
He did that in a very "pale" looking super segregated community. I'm concerned that he did it, maybe unintentionally, to pander to the audience in Missouri.
Missourians tend to know this issue...at least the stongly Democrat...yet still racist St. Louis...would many other people catch his error.
Coulter: Hitler didn't hit us at Pearl but we went after Hitler!!!
(Oh fer crappin out loud.)
THEY CALL ME PASTABAGEL
We call you "Dipshit."
Just like the freepers did, which is why you've been banned there.
AssWipe.
Peanut -- I also liked it when she said that we didn't have Germany in our coalition when we went to war against Hitler...
cm --
your correction was a little "technical," but, was correct. Thank you. Yes, he was not a citizen, as he was, indeed, property.
Main point: it was a "shtreckt cunshtruckshunallest" Court that allowed that drek to go forth as a decision.
And a s.c. Court that decided Plessy.
__
If George W. Bush had his way, Clarence Thomas would never have been allowed to marry his wife.
if it wasn't an airplane that hit the pentagon then what happened to the plane that is missing and all the people aboard? hmmm...idiots!!
we have an important election to get through.
Can someone please tell me where I can find the fact Bush stated that the top 1% Americans got an $89 billion tax cut last year?
Re: Coulter & Hitler
Germany declared war on the US. You stupid slapper.
Ann Coulter knows how to talk to Liberals. She says so in her book. I haven't read her book,
It's okay. I doubt she has, either.
A.
The Dred Scott reference is code for abortion. Pro-lifers often compare Roe v. Wade to Dred Scott for some bizarre reason. It's code to reassure the faithful without alarming the rest of the voters, who'll just say 'huh? Dred Scott? wtf?' and go on about their day.
James Wolcott does a number on Bush's performance tonight.
"It's one thing to cut off your opponent, but to cut off Charlie Gibson in mid-question, holler at the audience, and heave your shoulders with laughter at your own weak jests--this doesn't strike me as a good gameplan to convince swing voters of your sanity.
My provisional opinion, contingent upon no unforseen events altering the current dynamics (i.e, a meteor crashing through the ceiling of the auditorium), is that Kerry is grinding Bush into such fine pencil shavings that even Peggy Noonan will not be able to sweep him up and make him whole."
Peanut -- typical Coulter lie.
Hitler declared war on the U.S. after P.H., then we declared war on Germany.
But that's, of course, beside the point. Hitler's Germany was Japan's ally. Secular Saddam was NOT OBL's "ally" or in any way related to the "Islamic Fundamentalist Threat" that we're s'pose to be battling in the war on tehrrr.
But why am I telling you this?
It's late.
__
THEY CALL ME PASTABAGEL
We call you "Dipshit."
Just like the freepers did, which is why you've been banned there.
AssWipe.
Central Scrutinizer | Email | Homepage | 10.08.04 - 11:53 pm | #
I haven't been banned anywhere, stupid. "We call you dipshit". You're an unimaginative fourth grader.
Do you have your parent's permission to be here? Well, I mean whichever parent couldn't duck custody of you in the divorce.
THEY CALL ME PASTABAGEL
But of course, Bush's point was that judges shouldn't rule based on their personal opinions.
how does Postadogbell know what bush's point was- how does he come by this knowlegde, since no one knew the questions?
Wasn't Dred Scott that horn player from the 70's.....oh well....nevermind.
We have already established that Atrios is wrong here. It was about property rights.
Now why did Bush bring it up - to send a message to pro-lifers that he was on their side. Anti-abortion activists liken themselves to modern day abolitionists - I know this seems strange to a lot of us - just as it seemed strange to Atrios that a ruling having to do with slavery had something to do with property rights. Pro-slavery forces said human beings could be property, anti-choice activists argue that saying a woman has the right to choose is tantamount to saying her unborn child is her property. They argue that the 14th amendment says human beings cannot be property therefore a strict constuctionis justice should ban abortion.
That was where Bush was going. The question he was asked was: will you name the person you will nominate for the Supreme Court. Bush's dead-ender anti-abortion people are the only people he will have left by the time election day arrives. This was his gift to them.
Tax Cuts...
This site has quite a bit of information....
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
According to this, if I'm reading it right, the top 1% got 85 billion since the cuts were enacted (not just this year), with a grand total of 477 billion over the 10 year life of the plan.
Jennifer & SWMBO -- As a historian I had the same reaction. In my family we all looked at each other and burst out laughing.
Is the entire f*cking country ignorant of its own history? Did Tranny Coulter actually say that the US attacked Germany after Pearl Harbor?
I could have sworn that the "attack" on Germany was prompted by Germany's formal declaration of war on the US right after Pearl Harbor.
Her analogy might make sense if Iraq had declared war on the US.
Hey, wait, that might be the administration's next excuse for this war-- look here, Murkin People, Saddam secretly but officially declared war on us. See, it's the footnote in the yellowcake memo.
Where'd all the trolls come from?
anybody know why this page won't load in Firefox?
I haven't been banned anywhere, stupid. "We call you dipshit". You're an unimaginative fourth grader.
Do you have your parent's permission to be here? Well, I mean whichever parent couldn't duck custody of you in the divorce.
THEY CALL ME PASTABAGEL
A simple case of projection....
Sorry y'all, I won't feed it again.
Did anyone else notice that Kerry addressed the audience members by name -- even if they asked the question to Bush -- while Bush never acknowledged anybody's name, almost waving them aside several times?
Also, that Kerry frequently used local examples in Missouri to illustrate his points, while Bush may as not even known what state he was in?
I think Kerry connected to the crowd much better -- not as good as a Clinton or Edwards, but he certainly made more of an effort than Bush did.
Kerry also never, NEVER appeared rattled, confused, or indignant. Bush at one point almost threw a fit, talking over Moderator Gibson's offer to give him more time. Bush also asked if he had more time, only to not have anything to say for the next 15 seconds.
Kerry on style, Kerry on content ("compassionate convervatism? Mr. President, you're 0-for-2"), although he missed chances to really cement his advantage in this area on some questions.
Bush better than the first time around, but Kerry was unshakable. Kerry only needs to demonstrate that he is an acceptable alternative to Bush in order to win the debate. He did that.
But, Kerry is now painted into a corner regarding taxes. Unfortunate.
Pro-lifers often compare Roe v. Wade to Dred Scott for some bizarre reason.
Even liberal lawyers and judges consider Roe. v. Wade "bad law," like Dred Scott. Which isn't to say that abortions rights are not rights but hear me out and don't shoot the messenger.
Blackmun's opinion didn't make very much sense -- he tried to claim that privacy rights somehow equalled a right to an abortion. A stretch, to put it mildly. The decision was correct but the opinion, the way Blackmun argued it in Roe, stinks.
Postadogbell- do you salivate your spew on the Chimps' ding or dong?
-the kid is funny .
-what did you say grandpa?
peter langlois
should have just left aka.
Something I haven't seen anyone else touch on yet: Bush made the ludicrous claim that his forest initiative whatever it's called was good because forests aren't being properly 'harvested'... strange, but even if you're a creationist, you've pretty much got to accept that there were (and still are) a lot of forests throughout human history which are basically totally untouched by humanity and yet somehow don't all go up in flames because no one is 'harvesting' them (let alone ones before humans existed... oh wait, humans always existed after the first few days... don't mean to upset my friends on the religious wrong *g*).
Wow...the Yahoo article on how "Bush Fights to Keep His Emotions in Check" is pretty nasty, as thus:
"The question that hung over the second of their three debates was whether Bush's aggressive, hyper style was an effective tool or a damaging habit — an extension of his disastrous first debate performance."
Wasn't Dred Scott that horn player from the 70's.....oh well....nevermind.
I hope no one is confusing me with a troll because I think Atrios made a mistake here. He very rarely is wrong which is why I check his site first every morning. If you do think I am a troll please check my website and you will see that I most definitely hate W with every fiber of my being.
The whole Bush performance was aimed directly at the base. No undecided voter -- none that I saw on TV tonight -- could have come away from that persuaded to vote for Bush. And they weren't meant to.
Rove thinks he can win this solely with that base, at 100% turnout, and I don't think it's going to be there.
i still don't get it, tom. i know that "pro-life" activists think of themselves as the modern equivalent of abolitionists, but the dred scott decision did not advance the cause of abolition. it sounded to me that bush thinks the dred scott decision was a good one.
Bush's off road diesel these are great for protecting the environment. Since they are so expensive and no body has a job, no one can buy them so Bush is protecting the environment.
W was on cocaine tonight.
and smoked dope before the first one.
blah blah blah blah MOONBATS! blah blah blah blah....[snkszzzznzzzZZZ...]
I'm a troll. Bush was great. Kerry sux. I love my country and my President. We HAD to attack Ira----
crapcrapcrapcrapcrap, I just can't DO it anymore! Bush is a stupid TOOL and I'm tired of having to cover for is ignorant lying ass all the time! Someone rescue me! Please!!!!!
...
There's a gay porn performer named Dred Scott--muscular white guy with lots of tatoos. Scary looking. Maybe George was thinking of him.
Where'd all the trolls come from?
MRL
They're conceived when Bush supporters fuck inflatable women...but only if they don't wash the holes properly afterwards Apparently, too few of them do.
By the way, CS, Pastabagel wasn't actually banned from Free Republic. They just think he's a self-promoting, blogwhoring bore with nothing valuable to contribute. Some people have suggested that he stop freeloading off FR's bandwidth...but he hasn't been banned. Yet.
smalfish, we don't talk much about bush being drugged because we take it for granted, at least i do. he is obviously a burnt out speed freak. the only thing more annoying than a burnt out speed freak is a religious burnt out speed freak.
I understand that he is a burntout addict,but the fact that he went out to try and win an election via fraud,by being doped up is criminal.
None of the pundits will bring this fact up.Bush got a HUGE advantage by being doped up,Kerry still won,but Junior gets bonus points he didnt deserve.
We cannot let this time slide,because we are "burnt out one the fact".This one needs to be spread far and wide.
Bush was high on drugs at the debate,thats how he managed to "look good".
MSNBC has Ron Silver on AGAIN!!?!
Of course, claiming w won.
Wot a dickweed.
Olaf - I am going to have to go back and read the transcript of what Bush said. I can't remember exactly what it was I could just tell that in his own feeble way he was trying to reference the abolitionist = anti=choice argument. Knowing him he butchered his own reference.
REading your comments reminds me that one of the points that most impressed me about Kerry was his comments about judicial appointments.
He came across as "a uniter, not a divider."
In fact, in many of his answers, he came across that way. IT appeals to the part of me that is tired of this country being so divisive and so divided.
Bush's spinmeisters were out in force on television. We may have done okay on the internet, but I'm not so sure about the media. We should all be emailing Larry King for having Ann Coulter who was an absolute hate meister tonight. How embarrassing for CNN and Larry King to even have her on the show. Email CNN and complain.
My favorite coverage has definitely been ABC. Peter Jennings is calm, doesnt' get into all the hype and spin, and checks facts. I've gained respect for him during this process.
anybody know why this page won't load in Firefox?
theodoric
If you are still here - I have the same problem. Right click on Comments and select Open in New Window or New Tab and it works.
You know what they said about Debra Winger and Bob Kerry...she swept him off his foot.
carolyn in tx, i watched abc too. they did an ok job, plus jennings called kerry "kennedy" once which i got a kick out of. but he said they don't consult "spinmeisters" and then went straight to george will. pretty funny.
I'm not a lawyer, I'm an engineer. It's been a long time since high school American history. Bush's blither about Dred Scott was still a big "What the cheney?" moment. It should be publically dissected at length for the benefit of anyone who thinks that Shrub has any brain cells still in working order.
Yes: It's crazy ass bullshit that you shouldn't waste your time reading.
Old Hat | Email | Homepage | 10.08.04 - 11:43 pm | #
regarding the crazy tinfoil hat notion that a plane didn't fly into the pentagon. i always appreciate the way Old Hat cuts right to the point.
regarding dred scott, don't know anything about it(of course i've heard about it). but i will say this Dread Bush
yeah, tom. whatever it was that he was trying to say, it was definitely unclear at best. or maybe i should say "uncular".
> plus jennings called kerry "kennedy" once
> which i got a kick out of
So did Bush. I got a bigger kick out of that.
Found Bush's actual words. He DID say he would not pick the kind of justice that ruled in Dred Scott.
Bush:"I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.
Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.
I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
BUSH: 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 a 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.
And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.
And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution."
Again - this was a message to anti-choice supporters.
didn't watch much, but the Preznit reminded me of Elmer (Fudd) Gantry or some other jackleg preacher in the revival tent...
all he's been doing lately is shoring up the base, meantime Big John keeps acting and looking and talking like a President should and making progress.
Moonbat T-shirts here.
yeah, but here's where the confusion comes in tom:
"that's a personal opinion. that's not what the constitution says."
that is what the constitution said at the time though.
David -- I've asked myself the same question. I think Bob Kerrey's a nutjob myself. President of the New School, what were they thinking?
Olaf - right this is the typical Bush butchering of his own point which he probably practiced all day with Karl Rove. Whenever an argument gets too detailed he sort of trails off and says the opposite of what he means at the end. Either that or he says something priceless like he wants to defend "OB GYN's right to practice their love for women all over this country."
Please ask Dubya if I can vote yet.
Dred Scott was an enemy combatant, if I recall my Constitutional Law course correctly.
No, I think that was the Dread Pirate Roberts.
... at the time the constitution did consider slaves property and did not grant them any rights...
Bullshit! At the time, the constitution considered all men created equal and endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights. That passage has not changed since day one.
Bush: "[Dred Scott] said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.
"That's a 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."
NOTE that Bush started to say that "the Constitution says we're all equal", but then caught himself and back-tracked.
Brian in Vegas: I think there are some legitimate questions that need to be answered. IIRC, the plane and its occupants virtually disintegrated, leaving almost no wreckage or remains. Odd how more money, time, and effort will probably be spent investigating Rathergate than was spent investigating 9/11. (On a personal note, one of my relatives had just moved into the newly renovated offices in that section of the Pentagon a month before. She was not physically injured, but she personally knew a number of the people who were killed.)
I was at a large debate viewing party in Pensacola and when Wimp Jr. started babbling about Dred Scott, every black viewer (about 30-35) screamed "bullshit!" or some other form of disgust...not angrily but with sincere ridicule.
What a complete moron.
I just went to look at the transcript.
It is the entire context of the Dred Scott thing that's amazing.
"I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.
Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.
I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words under God in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution."
--- Ok, so far I don't agree with him but I'm not surprised. Standard right wing stuff here. I'm kind of used to that logic.
Then ----
"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."
Hunh? Is he so afraid of trying to cite a case anytime in the past 150 years that he had to go back to 1857? What the hell? Dred Scott is the quintessential definition of "strict constructionism" It took a Civil War and 3 Constitutional Amendments to correct that decision.
Bush was wrong on so many levels here its mind blowing. But above all because he was attempting to use Dred Scott as an argument *for* "strict constructionism."
But - THEN he got worse:
"That's a 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."
I read the transcript from 3 different sources. They all say the same thing once you take out the stutter:
The Constitution of the United States doesn't speak to the equality of America.
The man who spoke this sentence is the President?
Unfuckingbelievable. The man really needs a good history book. True.
More, he needs a copy of the US Constitution with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments included and highlighted.
The pro-lifers like to equate Dred Scot with Roe v Wade. That's why W brought it up.
Here's how the code works:
One thing most people will agree upon is that Dred Scott was a very bad Supreme Court decision. So bad, in fact, that a civil war had to fought to set things right again. If the Supreme Court could be so very wrong about slavery, than why can't they also be wrong about Roe v. Wade? And if Dred Scott could be overturned, why shouldn't Row v. Wade?
So, if a bunch of narrow-minded bigots can come to realize that Dred Scott was so very wrong (like they had a choice!) then why can't those pointy-headed liberals be big enough to admit how wrong they are about Roe v. Wade?
Added Bonus: by agreeing that Dred Scott was a very bad decision, I must be one helluva tolerant cracker. Thanks, George W. Bush. You give my life meaning.
If you call up some fact to sound smart, get it right. W blew it on that one, he only further showed people with education how uneducated he is. For his crowd maybe it looked good, but they probably just heard "fancy words" anyway.
"...I wouldn't pick a judge who would make up a phony bullshit argument that arbitrarily disenfranchised thousands of legally registered voters in the name of equal protection of the law.
No, wait a minute. Yes, I would."
BUSH: And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists.
CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY: It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.
From Chief Justice Taney’s opinion of the Court in DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD (1857)
Did he drag this one out himself? Hard to believe his handlers handed him this one.
The stock answer to this would be that the history of Dred Scott, the Missouri Compromise, John Brown and Harper's Ferry is taught a bit differently down south. Having had the misfortune as a son of Kansas to spend four weeks in a South Carolina Jr. High learning about the "War of Northern Aggression", I'd blame Bush's viewpoint on a Texas education.
But no...Bush was sent to St. Alban's prior to Yale.
Shoot...get the boy some sheets and douse that cross with kerosine.
BUSH: And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists.
CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY: It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.
From Chief Justice Taney’s opinion of the Court in DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD (1857)
Did he drag this one out himself? Hard to believe his handlers handed him this one.
if "nicki" wasn't going to vote for kerry before, i'm sure she will now. it's not really important.
well, if there was any doubt in her mind after bush used her question as a lead-in to strutting around on stage rubbing europe's face in the mud, I imagine the dred scott reference probably wiped it out.
she may very well have been the best-educated, most intelligent person in the audience.
Octospider - that passage is in the Declaration of Independence, not in the Constitution. The Declaration is a beautiful piece of propaganda, not the basis for this country's laws.
atrios,
Both you and Bush brutally miss the point on Dred Scott.
Bush argued that Dred Scott was incompatible with original intent; you argue that the decision was the result of racism rather than being based on property rights.
You both are wrong.
The Constitution, via the 3/5s compromise, recognized slaves as property. The Constitutional function of slaves was to give their southern masters proportionally greater representation in Congress, on the ratio of 3/5 a citizen per slave.
The Dred Scott decision was patterned on a discussion of property rights, property rights validated by the "original intent" via the 3/5s compromise.
Bush took Kerry to school
I am truly ashamed to live in the same nation as an ignorant fuckhead like you.
Now please go suck Pastabagel's ass.
Ironically, Dred Scott was based on a strict interpretation of the constitution. W's kind of judge would have been with Taney.
The Dred Scott decision was patterned on a discussion of property rights, property rights validated by the "original intent" via the 3/5s compromise.
By the time Taney wrote the Dred Scott decision, he had long since established himself as a craven tool of the Jackson administration, sort of a 19th century Robert Bork, with the exception that Taney's appointment to the Court was actually confirmed by the Senate in a moment of weakness.
You can continue to assert that Dred Scott was about property rights. Certainly Taney's primary concern in the case was with the "property rights" of slaveholders. What I doubt you can do, however, is explain why, in a modern context, that fact should dissuade us from regarding Dred Scott as a shameful chapter in our history, and questioning the judgment of an inarticulate politician who introduces it during what amounts to a campaign speech.
Anyone pointed out yet that Bush doesn't know anything about the constitution he has sworn to defend? The Constitution DID allow slavery. Remember 3/5 of a person? Then we had a civil war. Maybe Bush heard of it.
Okay, so what the Kerry campaign needs next is a good Black spokesperson to explain why Dred Scott is actually a good example to bring up in favor of judicial activism (to be suitably translated into politically correct language).
What I doubt you can do, however, is explain why, in a modern context, that fact should dissuade us from regarding Dred Scott as a shameful chapter in our history, and questioning the judgment of an inarticulate politician who introduces it during what amounts to a campaign speech.
It was a shameful chapter, but you miss the point almost as badly as Shrub does.
Taney's decision was a triumph of "original intent" jurisprudence. Slaves were recognized as property by the Framers. Taney's decision purported to vindicate that intent.
Bush using Dred Scott as a validation of "original intent" jurisprudence, by arguing that it is inconsistent with that approach is moronic.
As "chillmoth" said: "Ironically, Dred Scott was based on a strict interpretation of the constitution. W's kind of judge would have been with Taney."
Could the Dred Scott ref be Bush's attempt to reach out to black voters? Explaining that they're the "anti-slavery party"?
It was definitely a "huh?" moment.
Bush spent a heck of a lot of time trying to justify getting his war on.
While he did appeal to the anti-abortion crowd, he didn't really hit it out the park on issues. Even with his core supporters. Well, maybe big business felt his love. But certainly not working people. They didn't get much love from Bush. Instead for those concerned about non-tax related pocket book issues Bush offered his typical abstraction aimed at people who are already owners, people with a good deal of capital---the upper middle class and up.
Kerry hit a lot of balls in the park but it added up. In the end, I think he addressed more of the concerns as per the questions than did Bush. He also appealed to a broader base than did Bush. Because whereas Bush didn't address those nagging pocketbook issues with sincerity or with respect to the people who deal with those issues, I find it hard to believe that he swayed anyone with his performance.
Kerry likely did sway some people.
Add to that the shrill sounding statements Bush made and his performance wasn't exactly a)presidential (it sounded desperate), b)it was mostly justification for the messy affair of Iraq.
For a moment, put Bill Clinton in Bush's shoes tonight and have him try and explain the Lewinsky affair in similar sounding responses, with shrillness and with "resolve". While Kerry tried to explain his reluctant votes to impeach Clinton.
If you juxtapose the circumstances and the players, Clinton wouldn't have stood a prayer for that kind of performance.
Will Bush rise in the polls because of it? I find it hard to believe that this debate did anything more than apply salve to his supporters who freaked after debate number one. Really.
The bulge isn't a back brace. If it's not a wire, it's a bulletproof vest. He's been wearing one for ages...
the dred scott decision is the most famous example of the Court using a strict interpretation of the constitution in American history. how the president failed to realize that during his mention of it in the debate is incredible.
I think Tom, Baxter's et. al. are right: Bush brought up Dred Scott as an oblique signal of hostility to Roe v. Wade.
The thinking goes: Dred Scott's a famous example of conservative judges getting it right by imposing their "personal opinion," and in Roe v. Wade liberal judges made the same mistake.
This sort of reasonable-sounding comparison makes a pretty good barroom argument, accompanied by some confident "I know what I'm talking about" bluster. Note the pretense of being high-minded and non-partisan--"our guys get it wrong sometimes, and so do yours".
Of course the "argument" doesn't really make sense, because strict constructionism utterly fails as a criterion which connects the two cases. A strict constructionist would approve of the Dred Scott decision and reject Roe v. Wade, right?
The Bush camp doesn't care. They are power-hungry hustlers out to win. Doesn't matter if their argument fails to win over scholars and critical minds. There are plenty of voters in the barrooms.
(P.S. I'm no legal scholar but isn't it strange that the notion of "strict constructionism" has any prestige at all? The Constitution is a living document that requires imaginative adaptation to new situations undreamed of by the Founding Fathers. In an age when people have Uzis, who cares what Ben Franklin thought about gun ownership?)
Hey Anonymous person
KERRY: I'm going to give you a tax cut. The president gave the top 1 percent of income-earners in America, got $89 billion last year, more than the 80 percent of people who earn $100,000 or less all put together. I think that's wrong. That's not wishy-washy, and that's what I'm fighting for, you.
--K
Kudos to Tom and Patrick for decoding the Dred Scott reference. But there is another important political comparison, one that is ironic to say the least, that only history geeks might notice. If there is any modern day parallel to the Dred Scott decision, it is the 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore.
Taney thought that he could end the national uproar over the extension of slavery into the territories and put the abolitionists in their place by putting the constitutionality of slavery and the right of slaveholders to take their poperty everywhere by declaring that the constitution barred the territories from prohibiting slavery. Like Scalia and his four allies in 2000, Taney gambled the prestige of the Court by trying to reduce a political dispute into a legal one.
He failed, of course. Far from ending the debate, the decision only made it that much fiercer, since it showed that human rights were not safe anywhere as long as the slaveholders held power in all three branches of government. The transparently partisan nature of the decision, shot through with both substantive errors and procedural irregularities, only strengthened the resolve of those opposed to slavery.
It took a war, 500,000 deaths and two constitutional amendments to overturn Dred Scott. That decision remains the quintessential example of an illegitimate use of judicial power--and, as a later Supreme Court justice said, in describing its effect on the Court itself,a "self-inflicted" wound.
Which should sound familiar to anyone who read Bush v. Gore back then. Those were Justice Ginsburg's words--which were aimed at scholarly types such as Scalia--in describing the equally maladroit effort by the majority in that case to cover up all of the irregularities in Florida in 2000.
And one last point--Dred Scott was not a case of strict constructionism. On the contrary, Taney misstated the historical record to reach a conclusion that was not called for, much less required, by construction of the document he was interpreting.
If you want to defend Roe v. Wade, then go the merits of the decision, not how Blackmun got there. If privacy means anything shouldn't it give a woman the right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term? Can you think of a more private decision that should be made by the woman involved, rather than the government? Debate all you want on that point, rather than comparing Roe with Dred Scott.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/0...n/
09assess.html
"Loosed from the anchor of the lectern he often leaned on last week, Mr. Bush addressed members of the live audience by name and the television cameras directly, doing his best to suppress the frowns and squints so widely remarked on in his last performance."
Watched this journalist the same debate as I was?
Cut the NeoCon revisionism.
Obviously some of you trolls would make a patriotic hero out of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Dred Scott was about racism.
When human beings are accepted as property, that's racism. Not a property issue. The Civil War was an attempt of a racist feudalistic culture- the Old South- to control the economic and legal devlopment of the United States. "States Rights" was an excuse for the worst manipulation of human beings possible: blacks as slaves, and most poor white people as landbound serfs.
And the Declaration of Independence is more than law. It's the philosophical clarion of a group of brilliant secular humanists. More than any mythological deity worship, it is the spiritual pillar of the United States of America.
If you don't think so, and if you'd rather call a person like Bu$h your kind of "spiritual leader", you are greatly deluded.
And if you think Bu$h's going to win this election- by subversion to his Carlyle-owned Court if necessary- you'll have to get past about 150 million Americans who think the Constitution is more than a bundle of legalisms to use to justify Empire.
And who view the Declaration of Indepence as the Soul of the Country.
War is an evil thing- but it was the Confederates that were foolish enough to fire the first shot.
We settled those people once, and we can do it again.
I'm with you, kelley b. but will add this that I've already posted at dailykos and Steve Soto's - sue me for proliferation, I'm riled up by this Federalist Society crap.
On Dred Scott, I suspect that Bush, in his botched pandering to African-Americans with a "trust the system" pitch, also thought he was being magnanimous and liberated. The people Bush represents do believe vehemently in Property Rights as the only real rights, agree totally with Taney's second argument about slaves being property, hated Lincoln for seizing private property, and saw segregation as largely a matter of Property Rights re use of taxation. So Bush probably thought he was generously going against type but screwed it up, though none of his supporters would have believed it anyway - they would have heard it simply as polite nonsense you have to mouth to shut up the liberals.
PS - Bathing at Baxter's, I now see that you already nailed it, and hey! I was just listening to you last night and you were far-out!
Taney was strictly interpreting the Constitution when he said it allowed slavery. He was being a racist activist judge when he said Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories.
lawtalkingguy | Email | Homepage | 10.08.04 - 11:42 pm |
Are you suggesting that new favourite of the radical right, which is that the courts and especially the Supreme Court shouldn't have the authority to judge upon acts of Congress?
Supposedly, the reference to Dred Scott was a shout-out to serious anti-choicers who believe that Roe v Wade was an instance where the Supremes were incredibly wrong, as they were in Dred Scott. If you google "Dred Scott" and Abortion, you'll find over 6000 citations mentioning the two. So while he looked like a whacked-out idiot to millions of Americans, a few million others were going, "Yes, sir, you are so right." Wiggy.
Just to reiterate what other folks have already said, Dred Scott was about racism.
The Court's central finding was that neither slaves nor their free descendants enjoyed the rights of citizens, as the Constitution defined that word.
In other words, you got one black great, great, great, grand-daddy, and you just can't vote.
Tom -Daai Tou Laam -
Did you read that proposed constitutional amendment that would give Congress the authority to overrule SC decisions?
That's what Bush was talking about and it was a bone to his anti-choice base. Bush should have just come out and yelled: "Impeach Earl Warren!" and gotten it over with.
Google: Dred Scott Roe vs Wade Pro-Life
You'll get a bunch of anti-choice sites. I don't think that Bush even knows who Dred Scott is. He just has to throw out as many Christian code words/phrases as possible.
Kudos to whoever it was upthread that made the connection.
Thanks, tena, I'm picling up the real code now. Smarmy, aren't they?
Oops, I see that Heidi already had the same idea.
People who would have made the connection between Dred Scott and abortion are already in the Bush camp.
However, for the rest of America, the mention of Dred Scott was a "whatcha talking about Willis?" moment.
It was kinda weird for Bush to go back to Dred Scott. Between Dred Scott and the Newdow Pledge case there's been a bunch of Supreme Court decisions.
Of course Bush's response was moronic. He would have people believe the Constitution is clear and personal opinions don't enter into consideration. Of course this is wrong.
Pro-life positions are supposed to be very important to this President. The Pro-choice people often compare Roe v. Wade to the Dredd Scott decision of the 19th century. George Bush knows nothing about either decision. He is the least informed President since Ronald Reagan.
And another thing...as an African-American woman, I am so disgusted and offended by his misuse of Dredd Scott as an illustration that I could just spit. We are still cleaning up the mess left by that decision today. Any black person who actually supports this idiot needs to be institutionalized. Yes, Condi Rice, I mean you! Yeah! Colin Powell, I mean you!
Property rights. PROPERTY RIGHTS!!! Let me break this down for you. According to the Dredd Scott Majority opinion, the reason we could be classified as property was because we are black. Because we are black, they said the states could not prohibit our enslavement. Yes, George Bush has a blind spot when it comes to dealing with racism. He can't see it. Not even when it is staring him in the face. Not even when it is expressed in clear, standard English in a decision of the Supreme Court.
Not only should we elect John Kerry for President. We should ostracize Bush; strip him of his possessions and send away for life. Outsource the man.
Oh my fucking secular equivalent of god! I fell out of my chair, pounded the floor, and screamed (my wife came down and said ain't nothing that important), when Bush said the Constitution says all people should be treated with equality.
Uh, dumb ass, read the fucking thing: blacks are to be counted as 3/5's a human fucking being when allocating seats in the god damned House of Representatives.
Any 'strictconstructionalist' jurist would have had to say that blacks are not equal to whites--says so right in the main text. Georgie, don't hate me because I'm white, hate be because I'm rich and stupid, your strict contructionist judges would have had to have voted with CJ Taney.
Dumb ass! Wrong then, wrong now.
the dred scott decision is the most famous example of the Court using a strict interpretation of the constitution in American history. how the president failed to realize that during his mention of it in the debate is incredible
'Zactly
Upon hearing Dred Scott's name mentioned- the first thought was its impact upon his standing with minority(now a majority) rights voting.
A shamelesss pandering.
But the old days of being a fundie growing up it was ringing alarm bells- moral equivolency with the abortion issue is a long used thread of theirs to justify terra on our soil no less.
So will people start profiling these Dred Scott anti-abortionists?
Bush was making a double pandering. To his fundies and to the few voters of the black demographic who are vaguely familiar with Scott and still dumb enough to think mentioning it means you understand a thing about it. He knows he has no other way of winning their vote outside of Shaka(Chaka?) Khan groupies- let's see how long Schneieder talks about black swing votes on Dred Scott for Bush now...
Then Dred Scott reaffirms the 3/5th argument, which ironically was the same proportional algorhytmn that the diebold tabulating devices used in FLA, CAL, and six other states in 2000 and 2002.
So he is of course highly familiar with this, having already been briefed by Gonzales about this in case he faces jail time in the follow-up to a true Executive enforcer of qualification such as John Kerry.
Also Dred Scott takes into consideration some remarks for alien tort reform as Scott could be considered a non-citizen in strict terms to those with no soul.
See we need someone to run the FEMA camps who won't be a risk to loyalty ties with US citizens. Also they are not liable to the same laws in World COurt or to bne held liable as wards of the state. So we can send all the poeple Bush kept the borders open for to these camps in his last term when he has no reason to fear otherwise.
Ashcroft is ready for this.
Think about it- insource the slave labor wages at FEMA camps to end outsourcing. People can work their way to freedom to insure product quality.
And rich folks can even afford to buy some out as house servants/small business workers.Think of the TAX RELIEF that an assisted visa status expense can become!
Of course the Dred Scott decision would apply to these people in strict terms. Bush hates the 14th amendment as it stands, finding ways for Gonzales to circumvent this is his next step...
Ashcroft shared enough of the mormon voters in AZ to go along with this. Think of all the work visa wives you could buy with this.
But I digress.We have to undermine democracy and get Bush the liar prince back in his seat before this can occur.
Dred Scott applies to Abu Gharib incidents in Gonzales' twisted concepts of alien tort statute as well. Let's not forget the children! (Sy Hersh was rolled back via the K/E camp they don't really want to cool this war thing off either...)
Actually, Bush was right about Dred Scott. While it's true that the decision barred Scott from suing because he wasn't a citizen, it condemned the Missouri Compromise because it obstructed people's rights to property (slaves) by not allowing them to take their slaves to certain parts of the country. So, while he may have been pandering to minorities, his facts were straight on that one.
I see that people here have grasped that the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision was the epitome of strict constructionism vis-a-vis the Constitutionally recognized ownership of slaves.
One OTHER strange thing about Bush's performance is that there were about two important events in St. Louis history:
1. 1804, Lewis and Clark start their expedition from the St. Louis region
2. 1847, initial Dred Scott decision (in favor of Scott's freedom, later overturned in various appellate courts).
Bush's handlers couldn't have informed him of two tiny local factoids? Or they did, and he screwed up one of them?
Some people seem to be a bit boggled by Bush's Dred Scott remark last night. It wasn't about racism or slavery, or just Bush's natural incoherence. Here's what Bush actually said:
If elected to another term, I promise that I will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Bush couldn't say that in plain language, because it would freak out every moderate swing voter in the country, but he can say it in code, to make sure that his base will turn out for him. Anti-choice advocates have been comparing Roe v. Wade with Dred Scott v. Sandford for some time now. There is a constant drumbeat on the religious right to compare the contemporary culture war over abortion with the 19th century fight over slavery, with the anti-choicers cast in the role of the abolitionists.
Don't believe me? Here.
Further, Bush has to describe Dred Scott as about wrongheaded personal beliefs, rather than a fairly constricted constitutional interpretation because he needs to paint Roe v. Wade the same way, and he wants "strict constructionists"* in the Supreme Court, so he can't really talk about the actual rationale used in Dred Scott.
I can't emphasize how important this is, and how much it needs to be publicized.
[Sorry for the cut and paste, but I'm not sorry about the information.]
Dred Scott is wingnut-talk for banning abortion.
Google Dred Scott abortion.
It was Bush speaking in tongues to his evangelical followers. The rest of us think he is a nut. They think he is Righteous.
[via King of Zembla]
Scorpio
Eccentricity
As others have mentioned, many in the pro-life movement equate Dred Scott with Roe v. Wade. For example, you can find the following excerpt on the Operation Rescue website at http://
www.operationsaveamerica....ssReleases.html :
A broken set of the Ten Commandments, a baby killed by abortion, a white horse (Judgment) and donkey (Mercy), will bring God’s message to St. Louis.
Rev. Flip Benham, Director of Operation Rescue / Operation Save America will join Angela and Daniel Michael of Small Victories Ministry at the Historic Old Courthouse, where the infamous Dred Scott case was heard. "The Supreme Court was wrong in the Dred Scott Case that declared our black brothers and sisters non-human and in Roe v. Wade that declared innocent little boys and girls non-human. Judgment and Mercy are calling America to repent." Rev. Flip Benham, National Director, OR/OSA
As the excerpt says, the Dred Scott case was heard in St. Louis, the same place where Bush made his remark.
Whew. Thank you, Atrios, I knew I could count on you and all other escahtonians to pick this up. My internet connection was knocked out from Friday afternoon on and no where, here in the land of lily white (almost) where i live could I find anyone interested in thinking about the most outrageous idiocy, his comments on Dred Scott. Not only was it not about property rights, not only was it about racism, but it also wasn't about judicial activism. It was about interpreting the Constitution, which, despite what Bush said, DID allow slavery. Please, oh, please, the handful of black preachers who want to support Bush because of his views on abortion and gay marriage, and because you think he's going to send you a lot of federal money through "faith based programs", think again. This man needs to be removed from office. He is not and never will be your friend.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
