Jigaboo In Utero

A few days ago, during the 2nd Presidential Debate, Bush's dilated sphincter jettisoned the following loaf of excrement:

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.

Let's snap on some surgical gloves, pull out a microscope, and take a closer look at this fetid little dollop of rhetorical garbage. The first mistake Bush makes is to grammatically confuse Dred Scott with a geographical location; a minor faux pas considering that if you shoved his [Bush's] brain in a flea's ass you'd still have room for an acorn. Next, he treats the audience to another moment of executive condescension and infantilizing by employing the term "years ago" in reference to the famous court decision of 148 years ago; just in case some dimwitted thumb-sucker mistakenly thought that a certain porn-addled Republican negro may have been on the bench at the time? Finally, we come to the essentially incompressible nut of Bush's thesis: that the decision to dismiss Dred Scott v. Sanford resulted from "personal opinion" rather than from what the "constitution says"…which, it turns out, "doesn't speak to the equality of America." If I suppress my urge to yodel fuck-a-doodle-doo as loud as humanly possible, it would appear that the strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution which the president favors would have demanded a ruling in favor of Mr. Scott (we presume) not because he possessed equal rights (which the U.S. Constitution "doesn't speak about"), but because he's not "property" per se…which the U.S. Constitution does speak about. Therefore the "personal opinion" of the ruling would still result "because of property rights". Perhaps the final lines from the actual ruling might make this a little clearer:

Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff [Dred Scott] in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Whoa me! Does that say the case was dismissed for "want of jurisdiction"? One could easily get the impression that the Supreme Court was simply allowing each state to decide for itself what is and what is not property – a classic "state's rights" defense, the traditional "strict constructionist" doctrine used "years ago" to keep the black man down! Well Gawlee. Now I'ms really confused massa. Unless…it's all about abortion.