Worst Chief Justice Ever

[A18]

Earl Warren

[Max Power]

Antonin Scalia

[Frodo]

Roger B. Taney -of Dred Scott infamy.   

[Ebowed]

Antonin Scalia

LOL

[Max Power]

Antonin Scalia

LOL

What's so funny? It says Justice, not Justices. If it were Justices, it would be everyone who supported keeping Dred Scott as a slave.

[The Duke]

Antonin Scalia

LOL

What's so funny? It says Justice, not Justices. If it were Justices, it would be everyone who supported keeping Dred Scott as a slave.

I think its a joke, that Scalia will be Bush's pick for Chief and will be the worst ever.

I voted for Warren, who made the Court too political.

Everyone bashes Dredd Scott v. Sandford, but the fact is the Constitution enshrined slavey before the 13th Amendment.  Abolishing slavery is not the Supreme Court's job.

[Ebowed]

Antonin Scalia

LOL

What's so funny? It says Justice, not Justices.

No; it says Chief Justice.  Meaning Scalia is not a Chief Justice.

[Max Power]

Antonin Scalia

LOL

What's so funny? It says Justice, not Justices.

No; it says Chief Justice.  Meaning Scalia is not a Chief Justice.

Oh, hahaha!! Oops!! Then Roger Taney.

[RBH]

Dred Scott was a racist decision, or at least it was in the parts where it said that African-Americans were inferior and they could never be citizens of the United States.

Earl Warren's court did more to help restore the constitutional rights which were taken from Americans in some parts of this nation.

[Emsworth]

John Rutledge, and after him Roger Taney and Warren E. Burger.

[J. J.]

Antonin Scalia

LOL

What's so funny? It says Justice, not Justices. If it were Justices, it would be everyone who supported keeping Dred Scott as a slave.

I think its a joke, that Scalia will be Bush's pick for Chief and will be the worst ever.

I voted for Warren, who made the Court too political.

Everyone bashes Dredd Scott v. Sandford, but the fact is the Constitution enshrined slavey before the 13th Amendment.  Abolishing slavery is not the Supreme Court's job.

While I agree that it was not SCOTUS's job to end slavery, but that wasn't the question.  The question was, can the states prohibit certain activities within their boundries?

Could I, in 1850, legally go to a slave state, buy some slaves and some land, open a school and start teaching them to read, even though it violated state statute?  Could I claim that because PA and MA permits it, slave states cannot prohibit it?

(Now States, before you say it, a lot of owners ignored the law and did teach some slaves to read, but it was illegal in some states.  A lot of people ignored the Fugitive Slave Law too.  I'm referring to the legality.)

Scott v. Sanford was poorly thought out and violated about of centrury of common law, including those that the framers of the Constitution regarded as settled.

[The Duke]

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:

"Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Taney was right.

Several other pre-13th Amendment passages make clear that only citizens had standing to sue and only Congress could grant citizenship (which it had not done), and Dredd Scott like any slave was categorized as an item of commerce not as a citizen.

[Emsworth]

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:

"Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Taney was right.

With respect, of course, Taney was clearly not right. Dred Scott was not a fugitive slave; he did not escape anywhere. On the contrary, he was taken by his master, Dr. John Emerson, to Illinois and Wisconsin voluntarily. So this clause is not germane.

And in any event, Taney did not rule that Dred Scott had escaped and had to be returned. He held, firstly, that Scott had no standing to sue because he was a "negro," and therefore ineligible to become a citizen. Secondly, he held that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that slavery was legal in the territories despite federal laws to the contrary. Both parts of the ruling are absolutely unsound.

[The Duke]

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:

"Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Taney was right.

With respect, of course, Taney was clearly not right. Dred Scott was not a fugitive slave; he did not escape anywhere. On the contrary, he was taken by his master, Dr. John Emerson, to Illinois and Wisconsin voluntarily. So this clause is not germane.

And in any event, Taney did not rule that Dred Scott had escaped and had to be returned. He held, firstly, that Scott had no standing to sue because he was a "negro," and therefore ineligible to become a citizen. Secondly, he held that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that slavery was legal in the territories despite federal laws to the contrary. Both parts of the ruling are absolutely unsound.

The problem Taney had is that he went further than he had to given the facts of the case on the Missouri compromise.  But his central holding, and you chose to cut outthe portion where I said this, is that slaves were not citizens and could not sue in Federal courts.

[Emsworth]

But his central holding, and you chose to cut outthe portion where I said this, is that slaves were not citizens and could not sue in Federal courts.

The central holding, I believe, was that blacks -- not just slaves, but blacks -- were not citizens, and could not sue.

[The Duke]

But his central holding, and you chose to cut outthe portion where I said this, is that slaves were not citizens and could not sue in Federal courts.

The central holding, I believe, was that blacks -- not just slaves, but blacks -- were not citizens, and could not sue.

I'll look that up.  I was under the impression that he said slaves were articles of commerce and therefore could not sue.

[The Duke]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here are some of the relevant portions of the decision I found online (http://www.etsu.edu/cas/history/docs/dreddscott.htm).  It seems to be that while Taney makes note of the fact that Scott is a "negro", he relates the key elements of his decision back to Scott's origins as an individual, namel as a man who was born a slave to slave parents.  The negro reference seems to be merely gratuitous.

[Defarge]

Taney.  Ending slavery was a case fit for judicial activism

[J. J.]

Taney actually misrepresented the historical facts in his opinion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is inaccurate, since there were free Black citizens (though not a lot) in the North.

Further, Taney's own opition cites a case where a free Black man did sue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Scott/

There were examples of non-citizens having standing to sue.

Interestingly, even several of the concurring opinions noted that the issue was the applation of MO law, not a grand constitutional issue.  Nelson, in his concurrence implied that if Scott had sued while in IL, that law would apply.

Taney could have decided it based on which law was applicable and probabily would not have triggered the Civil War.

Taney deserves the vote for worst CJ, even when looked at contemporarily.

[Erc]

Rutledge, because he couldn't even get confirmed.

But Taney's pretty bad, too.

[Jake]

Burger and Taney handed down the two most horrible decisions in court history. Warren broke tradition and politicized the court to some degree. Rutledge was out there.

[dazzleman]

Burger and Taney handed down the two most horrible decisions in court history. Warren broke tradition and politicized the court to some degree. Rutledge was out there.

I don't know much about Rutledge, but I agree on the others you mentioned.

[Emsworth]

Burger and Taney handed down the two most horrible decisions in court history. Warren broke tradition and politicized the court to some degree. Rutledge was out there.

I don't know much about Rutledge, but I agree on the others you mentioned.

Rutledge is said to have had mental problems.