Thread by @MW_Royers

History will remember yesterday's vote in the Legislature as a Dred Scott level of infamy moment, not just because of the substance of the bill, but because of how they did it. #neleg Let me explain the parallels: (1/14)

Dredd Scott v. Sandford (1857) is pretty widely known because it was a Supreme Court case that upheld the institution of slavery. But the connection here is less about the substance and more about the details of how they GOT to that decision. (2/14)

Scott was an enslaved man, originally from Missouri, who was brought by his owner to live in Illinois, where there is no slavery, and to free federal territory where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise. When they return to Missouri, Scott sues, (3/14)

arguing that he was no longer enslaved based on his time in those free territories (I believe he was arguing Article IV Section 2 about privileges and immunities. So it goes to SCOTUS with a big Q: does Scott have standing to even bring it to trial? (4/14)

In a 7-2 decision, the Court finds that Scott is NOT a citizen and therefore doesn't have standing. This is where the gross part starts. Chief Justice Taney then proceeds to break all the rules. If Scott has no standing the decision should end there... (5/14)

...instead, Taney decides he's going to make several pronouncements. He decides that NO black Americans can be citizens, he rules the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and says Congress has no authority to regulate slavery, not even in federal territories, because (6/14)

to do so would violate the 5th amendment.

Which bring us back to yesterday. It wasn't just the SUBSTANCE of the bill in the #neleg. There were repeated instances where their own rules were purposefully violated. No trained parliamentarian would have ever allowed the (7/14)

proceedings to be conducted the way that they did. The 33 people in the Legislature did what they did because, like Roger Taney 166 years ago, they didn't give a shit about maintaining the rules, they saw an opportunity to "win" and didn't care about the consequences (8/14)

One final and BIG reason for the parallels between yesterday and Dred Scott. Chief Justice Taney, like those State Senators, was completely unqualified to even be in the position to make that decision in the first place. How did Roger Taney become Chief Justice? (9/14)

Roger Taney was part of Andrew Jackson's team. When Andrew Jackson wanted to defund the Bank of the United States, his Secretary of the Treasury refused to comply. Jackson tried with a 2nd Secretary, but he refused too. While the Senate was in Recess, (10/14)

Jackson appointed Taney to be his 3rd Secretary of the Treasury. Taney was a good foot soldier and did as he was told and removed the federal deposits from the 2nd Bank of the United States. When the Senate reconvened, they REJECTED his appointment. But Jackson was a (11/14)

believer in the spoils system, meaning he was big on rewarding loyalty. So when he needed to appoint a Chief Justice, who did he pick?? Roger freaking Taney. Not because he was an accomplished judge, but because he did what he was told during the Bank War (12/14)

So just like how Dred Scott was decided for the most part by a man who was appointed not for his knowledge but for party loyalty, yesterday a group of Senators advanced an awful piece of legislation and broke several rules simply because they could. (13/14

Also, Merv Riepe bears a striking resemblance to Roger Taney (the eyes!), and now I feel even stronger about this comparison. #neleg (14/14)

And as a PS - I bring this up because if the Nebraska Surpeme Court upholds this bill when it struck down the marijuana petition for violating the single issue requirement in the state constitution, then that court will have destroyed its legitimacy too.