Scott V Sandford

Vail Daily column: Why lawyers should represent unpopular causes

A local wag recently criticized another attorney and me for representing what is, at least by his lights, an unpopular matter. I note, first, before delving into why ethical attorneys should — in fact, must — represent unpopular matters, that wags are most times found at the butt end of the dog. And the more harshly the dog in question yips, the more the tail's a-waggin'. The lawyer's job, plain and simple, is to zealously represent the client's interests, so long as within the bounds of law and ethics. It is the lawyer's place and duty to give voice to the client and to aid in what is intended to be the peaceable resolution of disputes. At times, it is the attorney's impost to help in advocating for fairness and for change. Without such rights, we would be left with instability and lawlessness. We would be thrown back to the Wild West — or worse — where might, in fact, makes right. Or else, we might suffer at the iron hand of a tin-badge autocrat who would rule from high on what is permitted and what is not. If my friend, the wag, suffered at the hand of an autocrat who happened not to share his world view, do you think he would find equity in that? Too many people — left, right, center, or no particular persuasion — make the very human mistake of confusing disagreement with one's position with the right to air, argue and advocate that position. Several of my closest friends and I have never agreed on a single thing but the only thing that's different between us is the conclusions that we reach. And so they remain cherished friends who I respect enormously. We don't have to agree. The British writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall summed up nicely the foundation upon which American (and British) law is based. Giving voice to Voltaire, about whom she was writing, she penned, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Precisely. That is what the law is all about. And that is what is often lost from sight in the increasingly shrill national debate. The framers, in their wisdom, knew that a just society was one which afforded dignity to the individual and where, in the place of broad pronouncements, each set of facts should be vetted before a court of law and considered on its own, individual merits. The Constitution rings with clarion tones of equal rights and equal justice before the law. “Equal,” by the way, does not mean “only if you agree with me.

Fruits of the Poisonous Tree: The shock of "Dred Scott v. Sandford ...

I have chosen to begin my discussion of cases with the constitutional law case "Dred Scott" because it marks the first time where I realized that the opinions by the US Supreme Court Justices can be, and often are, direct reflections of their personal beliefs and prejudices. Before reading this case, I naively believed that judges were infallibly objective and reasonable. However, I have come to realize that they share the same misconceptions and stereotypical beliefs as the majority of American society. This case was particularly upsetting for me to read as an African-American person because it explicitly reflects the mindset of our nations foremost scholars back in 1857. In Dred Scott, the court ruled that "persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution." Reading this was clearly disturbing to me. The thought that our nations Justices could actually attempt to legitimize this belief, painfully resonated within me. In Justice Tatey's decision, he states that "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." And later in the decision, he states that "It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Truthfully, when I first read these words, as a first-year law student, I was nearly brought to tears. I reflected on the many generations that came before me that had to endure this type of systemic racism. It made me realize how fortunate I was for living at a time when the mainstream belief is in stark contrast with these types of views. And yes I do recognize that our nation has come a long way since 1857; yet, this decision serves as a well-preserved reminder of the plight and context in which African Americans throughout this nations history have had to face and overcome. This site discusses topics relating to law. But legal discussion is not the same as legal advice or the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances.

Republicans and Teahadists can now collect action figures along with their Dred Scott v. Sandford figures

Dred Scott v. Sandford On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion. Tane… (cont)

Today’s is a provisional constitution drafted by abolitionist John Brown after controversial SCOTUS ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford

Dred Scott v. Sandford, a brief history with documents

The only book on Dred Scott built around primary documents, this brief text examines the 1857 Supreme Court case - one of the most controversial and notorious ...

Dred Scott V. Sandford, A Slave's Case for Freedom and Citizenship

Follows Scott's lawsuit using first-hand accounts, quotes from participants, diagrams, photographs, and a timeline.

Dred scott vs. sandford, a brief history with

Report of the decision of the Supreme court of the United States, and the opinions of the judges thereof, in the case of Dred Scott versus John F.A. Sandford, December term, 1856

Dred Scott v. Sandford. [Opinion of the Court. clares that it is formed by the people of the United States ; that is to say, by those who were members of ...

Readings in American constitutional history, 1776-1876

CHAPTER XLVII DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD The pertinent facts in the history of the Dred Scott case may be briefly stated. Dred Scott, a negro belonging to Dr. ...