Dred Scott vs Sandford

One of the worst cases ever argued in the past was the Dred Scott vs Sandford case. The Dred Scott case was decided with biased ideas from the supreme court judges at the time and it also ignored the many other policies in the constitution. First, the Dred Scott case was judged by Chief Justice Roger Taney who was a slave owner in the past, and his involvement in the pellicular institution fundamentally altered the outcome of the case. The Ruling of the Dred Scott case established that an African American slave is not a citizen but a piece of the property therefore could not argue in the court of law. This violated the laws of Illinois because Illinois was a free state while Dred Scott lived there with his owner, meaning he should have been set free before moving back to Missouri. The judges went even further to establish the Missouri compromise as unconstitutional because the compromise violates the fifth amendment right to property(slaves were property). This was the worst ruling in the Supreme Court but it had to happen and I am glad that it did. The reason why I am glad that the Dred Scott case occurred is because it taught future generations of lawyers and judges to think more logically like someone behind the veil of Ignorance. As an aspiring Lawyer, I learned that every trial that occurs no matter the crime or situation has a value that can be applied in the future like the Dred Scott vs Sandford case.