Elected Supreme Court Rules 5/4 for Nationwide Abolition of Slavery in 1857

[Skill and Chance]

I'm taking this here as it seems like such a fascinating scenario.  Let's say Andrew Jackson and the early Democrats push through a constitutional amendment electing SCOTUS from 9 districts apportioned by population.  Here's the background from another poster:

If the Supreme Court was elected, Dred Scott would have likely resulted in a ruling declaring the institution of slavery unconstitutional, since the North would have had more than 5/9ths of the apportion-able population.

Then what happens?  Assuming Buchanan (or another Democrat) is president, do they enforce or do thy try to ignore it?  Does the South secede and/or declare war after the decision?  If Buchanan refuses to enforce, do Northern abolitionists secede or even attempt to overthrow the federal government and occupy DC?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not gonna happen.  The way the Supreme Court was structured then ensured a majority of Southern justices, so no way would Southerners approve a Supreme Court approved by an electoral college style system.  They knew even in the Jacksonian Era that demographcs was not the South's friend.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This map is ridiculous and over generalizing. It fails to understand why these states voted the way they did in 1860 and it was only the ruling itself that helped push them to vote for a candidate who met them half way, Lincoln running on a candidacy of restricting slavery to where it already existed, but not abolishing it.

There was no majority in the electoral college to be had for abolishing slavery, not in 1860 after the Dred Scott decision and most certainly not in 1857.

The most likely alternative result is not them ruling slavery unconstitutional, but 1) ruling the court had no power to rule on the merits since it denied Scott's right to bring the case or 2) a narrow ruling pertaining only to the facts of the Scott case, that goes one way or the other.

[WritOfCertiorari]

Uh... what is that map? Ignoring the fact that electing the Supreme Court like this is silly and defeats the purpose of, you know, a court, let's break down the map:

1. Pennsylvania would not have voted for complete abolition of slavery in 1862, let alone in 1857. Look at the midterm elections of 1862.

2. Indiana? The state that was basically the South of the North is going to vote to completely end slavery in 1857? Huh?

3. Even Illinois is stretching it. I assume this map is for abolishing slavery throughout the United States- there were concerns that doing so would swamp out (white) free labor in the North, and a state like Illinois would be at the frontline of that.

Now let's move on the decision itself. So, assuming that there was an elected court, they would be ruling on Dred Scott v. Sandford, which (a) was not about slavery in the South at all, and (b) was decided on Dred Scott's inability to sue as a citizen, and not any relevant part of the Constitution as to the existence of slavery.

Even if this elected court agreed that Dred Scott had a right to sue, they would still have to decide only based on the existing laws. So... they literally couldn't just abolish slavery like this. The Constitution implicitly protects slavery, but more importantly, it doesn't allow the government to just unilaterally end it without compensation- that's why we have our 13th amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation was justified as a war measure, meaning that it didn't legally end slavery, it just freed the slaves in the rebel states.

This is a good example of why a court is completely different than a legislature.