MADISON, Wis. — During a recent interview on right-wing talk radio, conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Maria Lazar did not know the most basic details of perhaps the most infamous U.S. Supreme Court case in our nation’s legal history.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1850s Supreme Court case Lazar embarrassingly fumbled the details on, held that African Americans were not U.S. citizens and gave judicial cover for slavery to continue in the United States. The Dred Scott decision is widely considered to be the worst U.S. Supreme Court decision in history.
Concerningly, Lazar also indicated she was not troubled by wrongly-decided court cases having the force of law for “decades” despite being wrong and without regard to their real-world impact.
Lazar’s specific comments on the case were:
“I understand that precedent doesn’t mean that you never overturn a case. I mean, there are cases, for example, Dred Scott um and some other appalling cases that the U.S. Supreme Court issued that … deservedly should have been overturned. But there’s also a way to do that. And those cases were overturned after decades of being wrong.” (emphasis added)
But here’s the problem with Lazar’s take: Dred Scott v. Sandford actually has not been judicially overturned. It was overturned by the adoption of the 13th and 14th amendments in 1865 and 1868, respectively.
“Beyond setting off serious alarm bells about Lazar’s basic knowledge of constitutional law, her comments demand answers to some really important questions and certainly call into question her credibility as an elected judge in Wisconsin,” said Lucy Ripp, communications director at A Better Wisconsin Together.
See here for additional coverage on Lazar’s bizarre understanding – or lack thereof – regarding the significant legal issue of overturning precedents.
