What is he talking about? In his remarks about possible appointments to the Supreme Court, Bush had this to say (from the
transcript):
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.
Dredd Scott said that slavery could be extended into other states - the Constitution already allowed slavery.
Then Bush says the Constitution doesn't speak to the equality of America. He would pick strict constructionists - people who would, presumably,
not see any rationale for equality in the Constitution (pace the 14th amendment).
Huh?
posted by Quiddity at 10/08/2004 09:16:00 PM
This struck me also. The Dred Scott decision was a strick constructionist decision. If the court had done the right thing the Bushes of their day would have accused them of the worst.
Dredd Scott is Bush's code word to his base that he will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Lots of evangelicals compare the two decisions, and Bush knows this.
Erik
