Dred Scott = Roe V. Wade

Some of us were confused for a moment when in a question about the supreme court and who he might appoint, mr bush mentioned a pre civil war Supreme Court Case about slavery and the rights of property owners. I mean what the hell was he talking about. We know how he feels about people of color, because he demonstrates an abiding sensitivity the the African American Culture, for example:

BUSH: Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists.

So what in gods name could he have been on about with that reference? Well it seems that the anti-choice adherents, tend to think of themselves as modern day abolitionists, and make many references to Dred Scott when arguing their case. So while some of us where confused, it should be clear that Bush was telling the faithful that he would appoint judges that were opposed to Roe V Wade, which makes the following blather about a litmus test, a lie.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

Lie might have been too harsh, then again, no.This statement "how they interpret the constitution" is about choosing judges who would employ the logic of the Dred Scott case in a reinterpretation of Roe V Wade, in other words judges that would find the latter unconstitutional.