That was what Bush meant in his reference to Dred Scott on Friday night.
Not entirely surprisingly we discover that Bush's reference to the Dred Scott case was not a lame attempt to prove he was on the side of the black slave, or a pander to the St. Louis Historical Society. It was a coded reference to Roe vs. Wade. Mark Kleiman, Matthew Yglesias, and Paperweight have more discussion.
Not convinced. Follow any of these links.
If you are concerned about this issue, and know any pro-choice swing voters, they might want to know about Bush's pledge to appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Posted by robe0419 at October 10, 2004 11:59 AM | TrackBackOnce people made the connection between slavery and abortion, they missed the more obvious point. The question dealt with court appointees. Bush's answer had dealt with loose vs strict construction. Well, if you look at the Dred Scott case, it is clear that a strict-constructionist would not have ruled that way. So, the immediate context shows that Bush's example of Dred Scott is the sort of things that can and do happen with loose construction. Now, the reference may have had a second component to it (abortion) but Ockham's razor suggests that Bush's example fits exactly with the context of the question and all he had said previous to that.
Posted by: Michael Kozlinski at November 10, 2004 09:25 PM