Question: Which Chief Justice who was born in 1777 delivered the majority opinion in the case 60 U.S. 393 in 1857 with a 7-2 decision?

<P0-S0> Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall. <P0-S1> ) 2 (1866) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. <P0-S2>  In this particular case the Court was unwilling to give President Abraham Lincoln's administration the power of military commission jurisdiction, part of the administration's controversial plan to deal with Union dissenters during the American Civil War. <P0-S3>  Justice David Davis, who delivered the majority opinion, stated that "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails," and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown. <P0-S4>  Chief Justice Chase and three associate justices filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority in the judgment, but asserted that Congress had the power to authorize a military commission, although it had not done so in Milligan's case. <SEP> <P1-S0> Roger Brooke Taney ( ; March 17, 1777 – October 12, 1864) was the fifth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, holding that office from 1836 until his death in 1864. <P1-S1>  He delivered the majority opinion in "Dred Scott v. Sandford" (1857), that ruled, among other things, that African-Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the United States Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and, whether free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States, which created an uproar among abolitionists and the free states of the northern U.S. <P1-S2>  He was the first Roman Catholic (and first non-Protestant) appointed both to a presidential cabinet, as Attorney General under President Andrew Jackson, as well as to the Court. <SEP> <P2-S0> Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) , also known simply as the Dred Scott case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. <P2-S1>  It held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves", whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. <P2-S2>  Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race" who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. <P2-S3>  In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request. <P2-S4>  The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional. <SEP> <P3-S0> Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), is a Supreme Court case in which the justices unanimously recognized the entrapment defense. <P3-S1>  However, while the majority opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes located the key to entrapment in the defendant's predisposition or lack thereof to commit the crime, Owen Josephus Roberts' concurring opinion proposed instead that it be rooted in an analysis of the conduct of the law enforcement agents making the arrest. <P3-S2>  Although the Court has stuck with predisposition, the dispute has hung over entrapment jurisprudence ever since.