I actually read Tullock (1987) first so my interest was piqued when I ultimately read Tullock (1965) and found him opposing Taney!
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I mean it was a dogshit decision driven by the practical incompatibility of slavery with due process, which functionally requires a racial caste system
-
But as a decision it’s just proto-originalism that is methodologically bad even on its own terms
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I imagine as a legal historian, appearing neutral regarding a separate but co-equal branch of government was ultimately in Tullock's self-interest, so it behooved him to accept Dred Scott as a valid exercise of judicial power especially given that the remedy was extra-legal (war)
-
Whether or not Dred Scott was a valid exercise of judicial power was rendered irrelevant by the outcome of the Civil War. Why engage in a side debate about the merits of a decision overturned by war?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.