News flash: Bush opposes Dred Scott ?!

[trochee]

In the debates last night, Bush mentioned that he would appoint judges that would oppose Dred Scott.

Those of us who remember 10th grade American History were (1) surprised that W remembered that much from that period of his life and (2) mystified by his need to declare that he's against American slavery in the 21st century.

But bohemond has an explanation for this: "You heard: 'I would appoint judges opposing Dred Scott.' Conservative Christians heard: 'I would appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade'". Go read it.

I'm pretty convinced. Is he missing a piece of this analysis or did he figure out the subtext correctly?

Comments

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

I think that is a correct analysis, and there is an even more explicit, insidious precedent-appropriating that could be going on here. Both cases deal with the issue of "personhood" and the Great New Laci and Connor Bill that Bush signed into law (and was bragging about) is a backdoor assault on abortion, because it sets a precedent of granting legal personhood to a fetus. This is, of course, dangerous, as the original Supreme Court decision was written around viability, which is becoming more and more murky with the new technology, but anyway, fetus=legal status under law. Before this fetus was not afforded equal protection under law, JUST LIKE A SLAVE was not afforded equal protection under law. In the cuurent kulturkampf, and with the Keyes-Obama debacle, the two are pretty perversely and explicitly linked.