eclecticism

Bush’s Dred Scott reference

Politics October 11th, 2004 |

10 Responses to “Bush’s Dred Scott reference”

1. Da Karlster! Says:
   October 12th, 2004 at 9:36 am

   OK…

   The BLACK GUY has to say wait a damn minute! I’m not even going to get into the CONSTITUTIONAL reasons the Dred Scott case was upheld.

   This is really reaching for it!

   Let’s just cut to the most simplistic reason this is ridiculous: George W. Bush has a SECRET CODE?!?!? He’s smart enought to use one?!?!?!?

   If this was something Cheney said…maybe. Something George H.W. Bush said….probably.

   The only secret code GW would use is “sniff, sniff [wiping nose] want a toot?”

   Why is it that emotional people look for things when facts do enough damage!

   This is as bad as the site stating Saddam was a disavowed CIA asset used by the Bush family ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm) and that also says the former head of the IRS was a CIA operative in the Middle East at the same time.

   [shaking head]

2. Michael Hanscom Says:
   October 12th, 2004 at 3:24 pm

   I’m not sure I’d be so quick to discount it.

   When Bush suddenly brought up the Dred Scott case, it really didn’t make a whole lot of sense. While it’s quite gratifying to know that Bush is anti-slavery, slavery hasn’t exactly been a big issue in the US for a while now. Discrimination, predjudice, and racism, yes, but not slavery.

   Slate has been looking at this, too…

   You’re skeptical. You think your faithful Chatterbox is drifting into “Abraham Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy” territory. Perhaps you’ve even done a little Googling of your own and discovered that while, yes, it’s true, George Will once called Roe “the most imprudent act of judicial power since the Dred Scott decision,” he has similarly compared Dred Scott to Brown v. Board of Education and even to France’s attempts to slow down the United States’ entry into the Iraq war.

   […] But keep Googling, and you’ll soon discover that Will is hardly the only conservative commentator who’s compared Roe to Dred Scott. There’s Paul Greenberg, the Arkansas columnist famous for nicknaming Bill Clinton “Slick Willie.” There’s Jeff Jacoby, house winger at the Boston Globe. There’s Michael Novak, the theologian-turned-think-tank-hack. There’s Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter to Ronald Reagan (also Reagan himself, in his essay, “Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation”). Several conservative legal commentators have made the comparison, too, including Michael McConnell of the University of Utah, now a federal judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. If, in the mainstream conservative media, the Dred Scott trope is common, in Christian right propaganda it is, like the Good Lord Himself, omnipresent. Sometimes it’s used to decry judicial activism…. Sometimes it’s used to put the destruction of fetuses on a moral plane with slavery…. Sometimes it’s used to encourage the troops to keep hope alive…. Sometimes it’s used to inspire fear…. Bush has a history of addressing the Christian right in code. In the Sept. 17 Washington Post, Alan Cooperman pointed out many phrases Bush has used to deliver a religious message over the heads of plodding secular humanists like me. “Culture of life,” Cooperman reported, means “abortion is murder.” Bush used the phrase in an Aug. 3 speech to the Knights of Columbus. “Wonder-working power” refers to the power of Christ, though Bush used it in a seemingly secular context (“Yet there’s power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people”) in his 2003 State of the Union address. Now, don’t get me wrong. Religious faith can be a very fine thing. Some of my best friends believe in God, and some of their best qualities derive, at least in part, from their faith. But let’s not forget that Bush actually believes that God told him to become president. In an age less prone to religious hysteria than our own, this would be judged impious. Even now, it’s pretty frightening to a significant minority, and Bush is going to need every last vote he can get. Hence the use of code phrases and jargon.

   Cynically speaking, I certainly share your belief that Bush’s ability to ‘speak in code’ off-the-cuff is limited to the point of pointlessness. However, Rove and Cheney are both quite smart enough to make sure that the right key phrases are fed into Bush’s programming. Tin-foil hat territory? Possibly. But, as I said, I don’t think it’s quite worth entirely writing off straight away.

3. Da Karlster Says:
   October 12th, 2004 at 4:43 pm

   As I said….I wasn’t getting into the constitutional part of this, but I see I need to make my point slightly clearer.

   The constitution of the United States regulates GOVERNMENT, not corporations or individuals. This is the reason the Dred Scott case was important BOTH to constitutional interpretation and slavery, though for obviously different reasons.

   The Dred Scott case showed that while having biased judges (pro-slavery) they acted CONSTITUTIONALLY in that the government has no say over State’s rights. Had Dred Scott contested the case in, say, Illinois where he was living instead of going to Missippi (his actual home) where he sought judgement…outcomes may have been different.

   Also, had he challenged his status in State court instead of Federal court….but enough speculation.

   Dred Scott is a testament though unfortunate of a governmental system that more followed the Constitution (i.e. individual(s) could not change laws based upon the morality of the current law), unfortunate as that was.

   From a “Black History” point of view the decision spurned a nation to realize that slavery in the United States was wrong and change was implemented.

   I can’t recall the specific quote but Fredick Douglas called it a bright day because the decision will angst America.

   The point is that we can look at speeches all we want and find “hidden meanings” in any political statment by any politician….especially if we are emotionally against their philosophy.

   Just ask me about General Wesley Clarke, or Howard Dean and how Al Sharpton seemed like “the beacon of light and sanity” versus those two .

   Besides…any President will appoint a person who acts in their best interest (look at Dad’s appointment of Clarence Thomas in ‘91 and how that turned the SC).

   I still stand by my statement that a secret message about ‘abortion’ is just not the case.

   P.S. I will read the Slate article later….still at work so will look at it in my spare time. Looks like good reading though.

4. Michael Hanscom Says:
   October 12th, 2004 at 7:25 pm

   Lots more discussion of this (with arguments on various sides) in this MetaFilter thread.

5. Firas Says:
   October 12th, 2004 at 9:37 pm

   Da Karlster, Bush is no law wonk. Remember he said the case was wrong because of the misinterpretation of property rights, when the case was not ultimately decided on the basis of property rights. He said it was unconstitutional, when, as you argue, the Dred Scott decision was perfectly constitutional, just repulsive to reason.

   The judges who passed the Dred Scott decision were *not* activists. They were the “strict constructionists” Bush was arguing for. Someone buy the man some IQ.

   (Yes, I know that you can easily argue both ways about whether the judgement was activist or not. When I think activist, I think of someone who breaks from the norm. Someone who disagrees with a the fringe interpretation of the constitution are called—surprise—conservatives, because traditionalism is based on following norms.)

   But the fact remains that, activist or not, the court was following the constitution in the way Bush wants his appointees to. Three amendments were later passed to fix this interpretation from being arrived at through constructionist lenses.

   So my point is, that the Dred Scott reference was not a perfect example of the type of case he didn’t like. It was just one he threw out to make a certain constituency bounce with glee. And they misinterpret it too.

   ——

   Or, Bush is really extremely clueless and could only pick one flagrant violation of what he construes as originalist ideals.

6. Firas Says:
   October 12th, 2004 at 9:44 pm

   Sigh, and now that I see the MeFi thread, they said exactly what I tried to, in clearer terms (Dred Scott = Constitutional.)

7. Da Karlster Says:
   October 13th, 2004 at 1:40 am

   Firas

   I think if you re-read my postings, you see I agree with you. I said (both here and on my BLOG) that Dred Scott was constitutional.

   Trust the brother here. I do get it.

   I’m not sure about your “activism” statement either. I never said the judges were activists. They were slave owners and detested abolitionists and the abolitionist movment. After this ruling they wrote a letter saying the abolitionist movement would destroy the constitution.

   In reading the MeFi thread as well I’m more inclined to believe that GW was trying to use a local historical reference regarding the constitution to show his ability to uphold the ideals of the constitition and liberty in a way that reached the people of St. Louis.

   Which as usual needed a laugh track when he was done speaking….

   Look folks, we all know the boy’s an idiot. No contesting that here.

   I envision him like a marionette (like in the new movie Team America: World Police).

   Just a badly puppet-ed one.

8. Firas Says:
   October 13th, 2004 at 8:31 am

   Oh, most of my post was about why the Dred Scott reference was a stupid example to demonstrate what Bush wanted to—a need for nonactivist judges—which is why I think it’s strange and likely to be an anti-abortion political message.

   But I’d settle with either, actually: Bush the desperate voting-base-rouser or Bush the bumbling puppet. As long as he’s gone by February, who cares.

9. Kynn Bartlett Says:
   October 13th, 2004 at 9:01 am

   Karl, the point of the reference was to do exactly this: Leave sane people scratching their heads about a seemingly bizarre reference, and leave the Christian fundamentalist anti-abortion-rights base going “Ahhhh yessss…” at Bush’s nod-and-wink.

   If you’re not seeing it, that’s fine — that’s what the reference is meant to do. Sane people are not MEANT to see it.

   Bush OPENLY said “why no, I won’t have a litmus test” but his choice of example said “…EXCEPT for overturning Roe v. Wade.”

   —Kynn

10. Da Karlster Says:
    October 13th, 2004 at 10:09 am

    O…K…

    Again using the logic you (and a alot of others) are prescribing to, anyone who sees this refernce — good or bad — are not SANE now?!?!?

    Please, I ask everyone to step back and look at this.

    I read slate, etc. but thought to myself that’s pushing it.

    I honestly don’t believe it’s a bizarre reference. I believe it was the idiot using it to make his point (which his point contradicted the example given) that made it bizarre.

    Had he said something like (going to quote the whole thing to puti in in context):

    “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.

    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.

    [Karl’s secular insertion: While I would, like you disagree, with the decision it was in fact constitutional.]

    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.”

    This would stop all the people looking for the hidden meaning and meant more and been relevant.

    Of course that would also mean he could actually present and use him mother tongue.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Note: This post is over 3 years old. You may want to check later in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.