Discussion for article #236268
When I was in need of a Neurosurgeons’ talents to save my life, I’m delighted that I didn’t go to him.
10 Likes
Someone please revoke this man’s Doctorate! Apparently he has not even a passing understanding of US History. Lincoln had been in office for just over a month when the Civil War began. We didn’t fight a war over any policies Lincoln enacted. Instead, the South went to war because they were terrified of what Lincoln MIGHT POSSIBLY COULD DO ACCORDING TO FEARMONGERERS IN GOVERNMENT AND THE PRESS!
Carson isn’t fit to lead a surgical team let alone this country.
10 Likes
Shame his medical studies weren’t supplemented by a high school civics class.
9 Likes
At this point I don’t know which is worse:
him spouting things he knows is not true
or
him not knowing what he’s spouting isn’t true.
12 Likes
One of these things is not like the other,
One of these things just doesn’t belong
Can you guess which thing is not like the other?
Come on now before my head explodes from such a $%@&$*! stupid comparison
Liar or a dumbass?
Or both.
4 Likes
This man is clearly schizophrenic. His understanding of history is just a jumbled up association of words with no real comprehension of what really happened. He’s basically arguing that Lincoln started the Civil War to defy the Dred Scott Decision, and that’s absolutely nuts.
In reality, Lincoln DIDN’T defy the Supreme Court, nor did he start the Civil War. But this is how history works in Carson’s schizo brain. It’s like he has most of the puzzle pieces and assumes it’s ok to just jam them up together and assume he’s got it right. But that’s what he does with everything. Words just don’t work the same way for him as they do the rest of us, yet he doesn’t realize that.
7 Likes
Is Carson advocating the President free all gay people?
7 Likes
I think he’s arguing that if the president does it, it’s not illegal. Seriously.
I don’t think he understands how the branches of government work.
7 Likes
Ironically, the actual President at the time of the Dred Scott decision, James Buchannan, was a huge supporter of the ruling and allegedly had been told by Chief Justice Roger Taney of what the decision would be prior to the actual release of the decsion. Both men thought the decsion would settle the country by taking the issue out of the realm of politics,but in reality, the north exploded in fury at the death of popular sovereignity and the realization that the decsion effectively legalized slavery in the NORTH. While many northerners were ambivilent at best about freeing slaves in the south, they definitely didn’t want the institution imposed on their states and territories.
Very slightly editied to add that while the Dred Scott decision didn’t specifically overturn northern laws banning slavery, it was widely expected, and Abraham Lincoln, in his house divided speech, specifcally references that it was expected that a decision making that an explicit thing was coming. There was a case out of New York that actually reached the Court in 1860 that would have been the one to overturn the northern state laws, but by then the war was on and the court declined to hear the case.
4 Likes
I think Ben needs this helpful cheat sheet.
4 Likes
All that actual history and legal precedent are just more “political correctness”. Liberal just use facts to shut me up.
3 Likes
It’s a sad day when Carly Fiorina is the voice of reason.
8 Likes
He’s a happy idiot.
Speech on the Dred Scott Decision
Abraham Lincoln
June 26, 1857
And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two propositions—first, that a negro cannot sue in the U.S. Courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories. It was made by a divided court—dividing differently on the different points. Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision; and, in that respect, I shall follow his example, believing I could no more improve on McLean and Curtis, than he could on Taney.
He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who has, in spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the authority of his master over him?
Judicial decisions have two uses—first, to absolutely determine the case decided, and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called “precedents” and “authorities.”
We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it . . .
Lincoln recommends influencing SCOTUS to eventually overrule its own decision. He doesn't recommend the President defy the court. He explicitly refuses resistance, instead wanting reform to occur with future court rulings. Carson lectures us on history. Pick up a book, Ben.
22 Likes
Actually, since gay marriages would be licensed by the states, any court decision would not involve the POTUS at all.
5 Likes
Seems more like he is advocating fighting a new Civil War over the issue.
1 Like
True talent is being a one man circular firing squad.
2 Likes
So Obama can do whatever he wants regardless of the supreme court? Citizens United over rule anyone?
5 Likes