Is The Original 1857 Scotus Ruling Of Dred Scott V. Sanford The Real Motive Behind Those Who R Claiming That ?

7 Responses to Is The Original 1857 Scotus Ruling Of Dred Scott V. Sanford The Real Motive Behind Those Who R Claiming That ?

1. 

   drewdun on November 17, 2009 at 4:08 pm

   I don’t think that there is any attempt to appeal to the SCOTUS ruling. Some people are just contesting that Obama was native born. They seem to be on the lunatic fringe and the current SCOTUS is not supportive of them. I think it is simply focused on the native-born requirement of the constitution, and not on Dred Scot
2. 

   TRM on November 17, 2009 at 7:40 pm

   This is deeply ironic. Let me get this straight. You seem to be claiming (correct me if I’m wrong) that it is the people on the right who are race baiting. You argue that they are the ones who are motivated by race and are trying to dig up an overturned case to prove their point.
   Yet by asking this very question, indeed by acknowledging the issue of race in such a manner, you are race baiting yourself. You are the one trying to stir up the very trouble you rail against.
   Let’s be honest. I agree with you that the birth certificate controversy is a load of bull. But why even give these people the satisfaction of acknowledging them? Your complaints are misguided and based on purely nothing.
   (And wikipedia is not a reliable source)
3. 

   K-win on November 17, 2009 at 9:30 pm

   I think some racists scared of having a black president attempting to do everything in order to stop him from becoming the President
4. 

   chuck_ju on November 18, 2009 at 3:14 am

   No. I think some people were just grasping.
   I didn’t vote for your guy, but I believe in the process.
   You have a great sense of history unlike some.
5. 

   Paul M on November 18, 2009 at 7:19 am

   Sometimes the best progress is made by knowing when to stop.
6. 

   Osama Obama Yomama on November 18, 2009 at 11:59 am

   uh, uh, uh, no
7. 

   A concerned AMERICAN on November 18, 2009 at 1:45 pm

   No.