Mike Huckabee: Dred Scott decision still ‘the law of the land’
25 replies, posted
[quote]Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said this week the Supreme Court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford — which held that free or enslaved black people were not U.S. citizens — remains the “law of the land” in the country to this day.
Mr. Huckabee, who has defended Kentucky clerk Kim Davis‘ decision to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, was trying to make a legal argument and told radio host Michael Medved he has been “drilled” by TV hosts recently.
” ‘Well, how dare you say it’s not the law of the land?’ Because that’s their phrase — ‘it’s the law of the land,’” Mr. Huckabee, a 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said in audio obtained by Buzzfeed. “Michael, [the] Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land, which says that black people aren’t fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?”[/quote]
[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/11/mike-huckabee-dred-scott-decision-still-law-land/[/url]
-snip, I'm dumb-
Huckabee's an idiot but you are deliberately taking that out of context if you intend on using it to paint him as a racist.
dude did you read what you quoted?
Not to say I agree with his message to any extent but wasn't his point that people are choosing to ignore that supreme court decision but not the one on gay marriage?
Either way, you can't draw a direct correlation between a supreme court decision to deny human rights and one that protects them.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48664753]Huckabee's an idiot but you are deliberately taking that out of context if you intend on using it to paint him as a racist.[/QUOTE]
Honestly he's being a huge idiot for saying something that can be taken out of context so easily.
The flaw in his argument is that an amendment was passed which altering the Constitution to say that black people are citizens.
[editline]11th September 2015[/editline]
Also says it in the article for those of you who aren't lazy.
[QUOTE=SamPerson123;48664764]Honestly he's being a huge idiot for saying something that can be taken out of context so easily.[/QUOTE]
You can't even really take it out of context, its fairly obvious what he is trying to say
[quote=Mike Huckabee]"[b][u]The Supreme Court in the same-sex marriage decision made a law. They made it up, and they made it up out of thin air,[/b][/u]” he said.[/quote]
You guys should be looking at this a little more, Mike is telling everyone that the [b]Judicial branch makes the laws[/b] which is a flat out lie.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;48664773]You can't even really take it out of context, its fairly obvious what he is trying to say[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter, welcome to the era of clickbait.
Bonus points because their source was a buzzfeed article.
Also despite the odd tone against Huckabee Washington Times posts some weird conservative shit sometimes, I'd be careful using their articles.
[QUOTE=lolo;48664825]You guys should be looking at this a little more, Mike is telling everyone that the [b]Judicial branch makes the damn laws[/b] which is a flat out lie.[/QUOTE]
Yeah... Every day I'm further convinced that nobody has any idea what the Supreme Court actually does.
[QUOTE=lolo;48664825]You guys should be looking at this a little more, Mike is telling everyone that the [B]Judicial branch makes the laws[/B] which is a flat out lie.[/QUOTE]
No, the tone of that statement is pretty obvious. Go look at the rest of his quotes, he's complaining about people saying that gay marriage is the "law of the land" when it was only approved by a supreme court decision.
Um no the dread Scott decision was overturned by the 14th amendment
Acts of congress or amendments superseded the courts decision, ala dread Scott was overturned by an act of congress and the states recognising everyone as persons instead of property
[QUOTE=Splarg!;48664866]No, the tone of that statement is pretty obvious. Go look at the rest of his quotes, he's complaining about people saying that gay marriage is the "law of the land" when it was only approved by a supreme court decision.[/QUOTE]
I've already read over it, he starts complaining about how they "made [Same Sex marriage] up out of thin air"
It's literally right next to each other, he clearly stated they just passed it as a law which we know the Supreme court can't do.
This tells us about how much he cares to know about the government he's trying to get elected to.
[QUOTE=lolo;48664882]I've already read over it, he starts complaining about how they "made [Same Sex marriage] up out of thin air"
It's literally right next to each other, he clearly stated they just passed it as a law which we know the Supreme court can't do.[/QUOTE]
Show me the bit that suggests he actually thinks that lawmaking is a function of the supreme court because it's pretty clear to me that he's saying the supreme court is just being given too much authority.
[QUOTE]“Because, in the case of this decision, it goes back to what Jefferson said that if a decision is rendered that is not borne out by the will of the people either through their elected representatives and gone through the process, if you just say it’s the law of the land because the court decided, then Jefferson said you now have surrendered to judicial tyranny,” he said.
“The Supreme Court in the same-sex marriage decision made a law. They made it up, and they made it up out of thin air,” he said. “Therefore, until Congress decides to codify that and give it a statute, it’s really not an operative law and that’s why what Kim Davis did was operate under not only the Kentucky Constitution, which was the law under which she was elected, but she’s operating under the fact that there is no statute in her state nor at the federal level that authorizes her.”[/QUOTE]
[quote]“Because, in the case of this decision, it goes back to what Jefferson said that if a decision is rendered that is not borne out by the will of the people either through their elected representatives and gone through the process, if you just say it’s the law of the land because the court decided, then Jefferson said you now have surrendered to judicial tyranny,” he said.
“[b]The Supreme Court[/b] in the same-sex marriage decision [b][u]made a law[/b][/u]. [b]They made it up, and they made it up out of thin air,”[/b] he said. “Therefore, until Congress decides to codify that and give it a statute, it’s really not an operative law and that’s why what Kim Davis did was operate under not only the Kentucky Constitution, which was the law under which she was elected, but she’s operating under the fact that there is no statute in her state nor at the federal level that authorizes her.”[/quote]
[quote][b]Show me the bit that suggests he actually thinks that law making is a function of the supreme court[/b] because it's pretty clear to me that he's saying the supreme court is just being given too much authority.[/quote]
Done
He doesn't seem to understand the difference between the legal text of the law which is enacted by Congress and the legal interpretation of the law which is validated by the supreme Court, they reserve the right to interpret what the law says as well as validate whether a law is constitutional, its been that way since the 2nd supreme Court in the early 1800s,
now there isn't any federal law that says marriage is between a man and a woman anymore, the SC overturned that one, they then interpreted the existing marriage laws to say marriage is between two people and all states have to recognise it and follow it as per the federal marriage laws and the bit in the Constitution stating official acts of one state are official in all states
They didn't enact a law, they reinterpreted the existing ones which is in their right to
[QUOTE=lolo;48664916]Done[/QUOTE]
Okay, I'm not doing this. You just underlined him saying "made a law" and completely ignored the context and the rest of what he's trying to say, which is more or less...that something the supreme court says doesn't count as a law.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;48665047]Okay, I'm not doing this. You just underlined him saying "made a law" and completely ignored the context and the rest of what he's trying to say, which is more or less...that something the supreme court says doesn't count as a law.[/QUOTE]
It's still a lie however, the supreme court is under checks and balances, the court can't have too much power as they only have the ability to interpret laws and how they should be seen, he is deliberately trying to make the supreme court look like tyrants, as if they had the ability to make laws however and whenever they want and interpret them. I can agree that he might not be ignorant about it, but it still discredits his information.
He said that the Supreme Court -in effect- made a law. As in, they pretended it existed and then enforced it. He's wrong, but he knows the courts don't make the laws, or at least that they're not supposed to. The point he's trying to make is that apparently the courts are acting outside of their power by inventing a law (when really it's just an application of an existing, broad law)
If the constitution is a living document that can freely be reinterpreted, then the supreme court can basically make laws. Sure, it's not called a law, but they are, in effect, making new binding rules that didn't exist in the past.
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;48665173]He said that the Supreme Court -in effect- made a law. As in, they pretended it existed and then enforced it. He's wrong, but he knows the courts don't make the laws, or at least that they're not supposed to. The point he's trying to make is that apparently the courts are acting outside of their power by inventing a law (when really it's just an application of an existing, broad law)[/QUOTE]
He's just butthurt that the SC can reinterpret the law against his caucus, they have been using their right to interpret the law for over 200 years now if he somehow thinks that's an overextension of their power he should get a new line of work
[QUOTE=woolio1;48664837]Yeah... Every day I'm further convinced that nobody has any idea what the Supreme Court actually does.[/QUOTE]
Didn't some of the SC Justices themselves question their role when the decision was made/passed?
Namely the ones that threw a huge titty-baby fit because the ruling didn't align with their personal beliefs.
Also is this ass-clown seriously trying to legitimize not recognizing civil rights for gays by saying "Yeah well there's still a law that says slaves aren't human but we all conveniently ignore that one so I'mma ignore this one, too"? What a sleaze-ball, him and Kim Davis were meant for each other. (bonus points if it turns out there's a scandal involving those two by the time the primaries are over)
Huckabee: Laws are pointless human constructions, Chaos reigns. Iä! Shub-Niggurath! The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young!
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;48666701]Huckabee: Laws are pointless human constructions, Chaos reigns. Iä! Shub-Niggurath! The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young![/QUOTE]
Whoa there, fish boy.
The argument that SCOTUS can't make laws therefore he's wrong is such a paper thin argument because if you actually follow the history of the Court, it's pretty fucking obvious that they do make law (both in positive and negative ways) through their interpretation of the Constitution and laws relative to it. The Court finds new meanings in existing text. It finds new meanings in previous interpretations and in intents. For all practical reasons, that is a means of making legislation that acts as law. To say that SCOTUS isn't making law is semantics and not reality. SCOTUS makes laws. They selectively decided to interpret the 14th Amendment in a such a way as to have a legal effect different from its previous legal effect. ergo, law made.
Really what Huckabee's issue is is that the Court acts off of opinion more often than not. Oh well. This isn't news. Often this is just a shit sandwich that you have to swallow. This is the way the Court's functioned since well before Dredd (which was overturned by the 14th Amendment and specifically addressed by civil rights cases later on). Sorry Huck, tis the way it tis.
[QUOTE=SamPerson123;48664764]Honestly he's being a huge idiot for saying something that can be taken out of context so easily.[/QUOTE]
Thats not fair. Almost anything you say can be taken out of context and used to paint a target on the back of your head
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.