Don't get me wrong. This decesion was reprehensible. But what else could the courts do when the constitution shamefully allowed slavery?

Dred Scott after being brought by his slave owner John Emerson to free states filed suit against his widow upon his death contending he was emancipated by the laws of the free states whereby he could file suit. The Supreme Court however rejected his contention and returned him to his master (who eventually freed him). Justice Taney wrote the opinion for the court- striking down the Missouri Compromise in the process- as unconstitutional; And proceeded to declare blacks sub human- not fit to be citizens. Beyond the sickening and peverted ruling even the rationale is fatally flawed. The reciprocity of state laws to be upheld for those visiting that state and should therefore apply to those individuals there within. Easily understood if the driving age in one state is 16 and another 18, the 16 year old can obtain a license in that state and drive in the other upon return. Dred Scott should have been allowed to sue for his freedom as he was afforded rights in that state to do so. This obviously did not serve the bigoted ends of the court however. They then simply usurped the authority of the legislature and imposed through judicial fiat, this horrible chapter in American history. But now that we are all enlightened(?) and can look back in righteous judgement can we say we learned anything? Let us look at the similarities between Roe V Wade. Roe filed suit because the state of Texas afforded rights to unborn that barred her from killing her unborn baby (that baby is now a fully grown PROLIFE 31 year old- wow that's a surprise). Dred Scott was denied rights so the powerful could fulfill their nefarious desires. Unborn children are denied their rights to serve the nefarious desires of murderous mothers. Justice Taney argued that blacks were inferior to whites and therefore should be afforded no rights. Justice Blackmon argued for the court in Roe that unborn child was not fully human and should be afforded no rights. The logic of both is tragically flawed but those who learn nothing from history are doomed to repeat it. UPDATE**** Forgive me but I didn't realize stolypin's comments before I posted this. To who I now have to suggest actually reads the Dred Scott decision. The decision handed down by Taney- a Confederate sympathizer- actually voided the Missouri Compromise, the constitutional means by which our republic was addressing slavery at the moment. The court usurped the authority and erected nothing short of the RIGHT to own slaves! Your post is completely wrong. And your position that seems to be critical of judicial activism- is precisely what the did in the most egregious manner. This case along with Roe are easily the two worse decisions ever handed down by the court and when you have time I suggest you read it and rethink your post. UPDATE: I find Drummund's discursive post- beyond its attempt to be controversial- clearly untenable. "The Constitution was meaningless" yet it "clearly allowed for the ownership of human beings as property". If it was meaningless defining slavery as an absolute "right" surely seems quite meaningful but more importantly intrinsic to this babble is the essence of what is wrong with Drummund's view of Constitution: simply because it allows for something doesn't mean it affords a "right" to it. His inability to understand the nexus between Roe- where once again the Court usurped the authority of the people to create a right to something (in both cases redefining human life to justify a horrible ends for it) that it wished to remove from the democratic process- only illuminates the weakness of his position.

I'm giving it 5 stars to make a point. I actually think the decision was horrible, but correct from a strictly legal perspective. Fact is, the Constitution quite clearly allowed for the ownership of human beings as property and therefor that ownership was protected by due process. There was good reason abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison held "Constitution burnings." The Constitution was meaningless until after the Civil War. The 13th and 14th Amendments overturned Dred Scott. But to deny the soundness of this decision is really to soft-pedal the fact that the Supreme law of the land was racist and brutal when it came to slavery until those amendments were passed. George Bush's lame attempt to link this to Roe v. Wade was not only morally reprehensible, but legally inept.

While the ruling is reprehensible based on the content, I'm sorry to say I think there was constitutional justification, based on the Constitution as it appeared in 1857. The Court did not overstep its bounds, instead requiring the 13th and 14th Amendments to right the wrong. A social issue (in this case, slavery) was fixed the constitutional way, even though it took a violent war. Instead of unconstitutionally making its own laws (as the court has done ever since, starting with the disgusting Plessy verdict), the court followed the Constitution and Congress and the states acted correctly to end slavery through the Constitutional Amendment process. **UPDATE** I realize that Dred Scott overturned the Missouri Compromise. Looking back on what I wrote, I see that I was unclear. I was refering only to the part of the ruling actually relating to specifics of the case - that Dred Scott did not have standing and that the court did not have the power to rule slavery unconstitutional. I think that by overturning the Missouri Compromise, the court did not do its job. The United States Congress had the power to govern the territories and therefore was able ban slavery in the territories. That all being said, I stand by my claim that a constitutional amendment was the proper way of ending slavery in America, rather than through court action, as the people who brought the Dred Scott case had hoped.

Hate to say it, but by the flawed law of the land at that time, the court was right. It also got fixed the right way as was already pointed out. Too bad that we had to kick the crap out of each other in a war that still isn't over for some idiots to fix it.

The constitution said at the time that slaves counted as people when determining electoral votes. (or at least parts of people) Seems to me like they're people.

This case ended with a person being defined as property. Not a person, but a object that can be owned and done whatever with. This doesn't sound right to me.

I can't believe anyone would vote 'Good' or 'Great' on this. What kind of cold-hearted throw-backs to the 19th century are you? I wouldn't post anything and identify myself here either if I were you. Sheesh!

The Dred Scott Decision was one of the most despicable cases in history. It basically stated that a slave could not sue his owner because technically a slave is property.