BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
I know what the Dred Scott case was about. And I like your spin on how to evade the point. But it’s still a fail.The Dred Scott case was where a white and his slave Black from a slavery state, went to a free state and wanted to then return to the slave state with the Black remaining a slave.
Obviously slavery is wrong, but the court did not have to rule on that and change any precedent.
The point of law the SCOTUS failed on was that the slave state jurisdiction did not extend over the free state, so then Dred Scott could not then be legally forced back to the slave state.
The precedent the court violated was to allow one state to over ride another state both in law and jurisdiction.
And you are also totally wrong about abortion.
The right to life does NOT allow for anyone to have precedence over anyone one else.
If you need a transfusion to live, you can NOT demand it from anyone else.
The right to life means the right to be left alone, NOT to force a woman to carry and give birth.
That is infinitely beyond the "right to life" and totally illegal.
And you also fail in your pathetic effort to claim that I’m wrong about the abortion matter. The right to life absolutely DOES come as the preeminent right. You have a right to vote but you cannot vote (legally) if you’re dead. You have a right to free speech, but the dead can’t speak. You have a right to a trial when charged with a crime, but you don’t get a trial if you’re already dead. You have a right to the free exercise of your own religion, but you can’t worship in a coffin.
There will always be a competition between some tights and there will also always be a prioritization of some competing rights. And since there are no rights at all for the dead, the right to life itself is the highest one.
Can that be debated? I guess. But the debate is a fool’s errand.