It was literally Taney's argument that the existence of discriminatory laws proved that free black Americans were definitionally not citizens, rather than treating their exercise of key aspects of citizenship as the starting point.https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1424723653346873348 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
Can you cite to that portion of Dred Scott, cause I don't remember it. Also, as I recall Dred was a jurisdictional case that Taney, without any basis, shoehorned into this issue that wasn't addressed in the lower courts.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
In that section, he discussed how the states could designate citizens prior to Ratification, but does not at any point discuss the varying laws among states subsequent to Ratification. It's also wholly without citation to anything, and therefore dicta.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @michaelpreis
It's *wrong* but it is not dicta. SCOTUS can make law. Taney's holding - black people could not be citizens at the Founding - actually renders the *rest* of the opinion dicta.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
It also cleverly avoids the whole issue Jamelle brought up, which is the varying ways that States actually treated black people. It is dicta, it has no authority for other cases because it rests on nothing but Taney's word regarding the original situation at Ratification.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @michaelpreis
I don't think you understand how dicta works. It's a majority opinion of the US Supreme Court on whether the Court had jurisdiction over the case. It's non-binding today only bc it was abrogated by the 14A.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
I actually write legal briefs, I do understand what dicta is. This is infuriating. You keep changing what you mean, which isn't surprising because your arguments are terrible. Dred doesn't mention different laws in states, which is your citation. A good judge would crush that.
2 replies 0 retweets 16 likes
I practiced law, very successfully, for 23 years. You should try reading the whole opinion & some of the extensive commentary on it. The Court's decision on whether Dred Scott was a citizen was not dicta. It was the central holding of the case.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
Your original assertion was that the existence of discriminatory laws showed that blacks could not be citizens, I asked for a cite, it did not say anything about those laws. I am sure you were successful before, lots of mediocre judges let mediocre lawyers get by with stuff then.
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.