1) Some have described the decision in Dred Scott v Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), as the worst decision in the history of the United States Supreme Court. Examine the decision critically and provide a detailed legal analysis of the case and either (a) justify the criticism or (b) refute it. In your analysis you may make relevant references to case law and or to any recent developments, political or otherwise, to support or illustrate your response.

2) Consider these facts:

"On October 29, 1997, Nathaniel Jamar Abraham fatally shot Ronnie Greene. He also shot Michael Hudack, but that did not end in a fatality.

Nathaniel Abraham was 11 years old when he commited these acts and he was charged with the second-degree murder of Ronnie Greene under a 1997 Michigan Law that set no minimum age for the prosecution of juveniles as adults for serious and violent offenses.

The Llaw known as MCL 712 A. 2d (1) provided in relevant part the following:

" In a petition or amended petition alleging that a juvenile is within the courts jurisdiction under section 2(a) (1) of this chapter for a specified juvenile violation, the prosecuting attorney may designate the case as a case in which the juvenile is to be tried in the same manner as an adult."

The jury found Nathaniel Abraham guilty of the second-degree murder of Ronnie Greene, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole."

Defense attorneys have argued that Michigans Law violated the United States Constituition and described the verdict as a "repugnant verdict" and "incomprehensible in civilized soiciety" and a barbaric attack on children. They have appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Imagine that you are a justice of the United States Supreme Court and you have been requested to write an opinion on this case. How would you rule and why? You may cite decided case law to support or explain your opinion.