Removal of the Dred Scott Comparison  Completely Irrelevant   Bill Clintons views concerning a comparison with Dred Scott are not even remotely noteworthy Ironically this issue was addressed in another section above with one of the editors concluding that the fame of Clinton alone would not suffice to make the comparison noteworthy Another editor or perhaps it was the same then suggested that it might be noteworthy if it involved some sort of legal analysis The parties seemed to agree but then  inexplicably  left it in without explaining how Clintons comparison amounts to a legal analysis Exactly how does Clintons statement that the case would go down in history as one of the worst SCOTUS cases along with Dred Scott amount to any sort of legal analysis With all due respect I would argue that this is nothing but a conclusory assertion unsupported by any sound legal reasoning and should not be included in the article If others want to leave it in fine but they should realize that this will open up the flood gates for including virtually any other opinion of a famous person regardless of how unsubstantiated it may be Come on guys this is a legal article were above the whole POV thing