US Supreme Court FINALLY overrules "Korematsu"

Apr 2017
298
United Kingdom
#11
There is a thread in Speculative History that proved without a doubt the impossibility of Japan invading the US, even with the help of alien space bats.
I think you overlook the fact that a U-Boat(submarine) successfully landed a party of saboteurs on US soil in June 1942, several of whom were tried by military commission on FDR's orders and executed two months later( see Wikipedia entry for Ex parte Quirin)- why did not Japan which is far closer to the US than Germany attempt such a commando raid?


Terry
 
Jan 2015
2,960
Rupert's Land ;)
#12
Read the thread, it proved the only invasion of American territory the Japanese could have carried out was the US embassy in Tokyo. But yeah, that's with 20/20 hindsight.
http://historum.com/speculative-his...anity-china-goes-jogular-rich-weak-ameri.html
Rubbish.
The Japanese may well have been able to invade Hawaii, had things turned out differently in the naval war.
Not only that, they DID in fact invade American territory successfully in several places.

I think you overlook the fact that a U-Boat(submarine) successfully landed a party of saboteurs on US soil in June 1942, several of whom were tried by military commission on FDR's orders and executed two months later( see Wikipedia entry for Ex parte Quirin)- why did not Japan which is far closer to the US than Germany attempt such a commando raid?


Terry
They seized US islands.
Japan also launched attacks against the mainland US.

The reason that they didn't try commando attacks like the Germans is probably that the Germans felt that their agents would be less conspicuous.
 
Jan 2015
2,960
Rupert's Land ;)
#13
In the course of upholding President Trump's "Muslim travel ban", the US Supreme Court finally OVERRULED the infamous Korematsu decision
The ruling did no such thing, Korematsu was not overruled, the court referred to the "Court of History" which has no standing in law.
"The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history"
The ruling used double-talk in an attempt to distance itself from the fact that it essentially reaffirmed the principle behind Korematsu: The executive may invoke national security, however speciously, to justify actions that are counter to the principles on which the US was supposedly founded.
The US was founded on the principle that anyone is free to disregard the law as they see fit?
That every foreign national has an automatic right to demand entry into US territory?
:confused:
 
Last edited:

Recusant

Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
2,600
Sector N after curfew
#14
The ruling used double-talk in an attempt to distance itself from the fact that it essentially reaffirmed the principle behind Korematsu: The executive may invoke national security, however speciously, to justify actions that are counter to the principles on which the US was supposedly founded.
The US was founded on the principle that anyone is free to disregard the law as they see fit?
That every foreign national has an automatic right to demand entry into US territory? :confused:
An amazing straw man you've constructed there. All would agree that it exemplifies wretched folly. One marvels at the savage, masterful strokes with which you've thrashed it. :cool:
 
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
#16
An amazing straw man you've constructed there. All would agree that it exemplifies wretched folly. One marvels at the savage, masterful strokes with which you've thrashed it. :cool:
You made a ridiculous statement. The US was not founded on the principal of completely uncontrolled, unregulated crossing of our borders.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,645
#17
Read the thread, it proved the only invasion of American territory the Japanese could have carried out was the US embassy in Tokyo. But yeah, that's with 20/20 hindsight.
http://historum.com/speculative-his...anity-china-goes-jogular-rich-weak-ameri.html
Actually, the Japanese did invade US territory, the Aleutian Islands.0, and occupied them for a while. It was about a year before the US retook them.

The key point is not whether a Japanese invasion was ever feasible, but whether FDR thought it was a possibility.
 
Last edited:

Recusant

Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
2,600
Sector N after curfew
#18
You made a ridiculous statement. The US was not founded on the principal of completely uncontrolled, unregulated crossing of our borders.
It would be a ridiculous statement, if I had made it. You join Lord Fairfax, and infer something that I never said. He quoted only a portion of my post, which conveniently allowed him to address a false representation of that post.
 
Last edited:

RoryOMore

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
3,391
USA
#19
The comparison between the Germans and Japanese in WW2 is an invalid one, and there were many differences between the 2 groups.
The Japanese emperor was considered to be divine in Shinto religion. The loyalty questionnaire administered to those interred specifically referenced "...allegiance or obedience to the Japanese emperor...."

http://ddr.densho.org/media/ddr-densho-72/ddr-densho-72-4-mezzanine-3e26379d38.pdf

One cannot simultaneously assert that separation of church and state is important, but that failure to separate church and state cannot be important.
 

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,448
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#20
The ruling used double-talk in an attempt to distance itself from the fact that it essentially reaffirmed the principle behind Korematsu: The executive may invoke national security, however speciously, to justify actions that are counter to the principles on which the US was supposedly founded. The eloquent dissenting opinion written by Justice Sotomayor gives the lie to this hollow repudiation of Korematsu.
I disagree that this decision "reaffirmed" Korematsu.

From the decision itself: (bold mine)
Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States,
323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the
dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do
with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to
concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of
race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential
authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that
morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying
certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission.
See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is
well within executive authority and could have been taken
by any other President—the only question is evaluating
the actions of this particular President in promulgating an
otherwise valid Proclamation.
I agree with the majority. Despite the President's rhetoric as a candidate, the travel ban conforms to the statute perfectly. A multi-agency world wide study was made, and a few countries were found to be deficient in reporting data. These are the countries affected. It is objectively not a "Muslim ban", since it doesn't mention Muslims or Islam, and affects a small percentage of Muslims in any case (tMuslim countries in question hold only about 8% of all Muslims).
All of these countries have been declared security risks by other administrations.

I didn't find Justice Sotomayor's dissent "eloquent", rather I found it troubling.
From the majority opinion:
The dissent finds “perplexing” the application of rational basis review
in this context. Post, at 15. But what is far more problematic is
the dissent’s assumption that courts should review immigration policies,
diplomatic sanctions, and military actions under the de novo
“reasonable observer” inquiry applicable to cases involving holiday
displays and graduation ceremonies.
The statute is clear, and the trump administration adhered to it. Even the dissent doesn't challenge this, rather Justice Sotomayor would try to discern true motivations. I think this is a bad way to review law.
Again, from the decision:
Plaintiffs argue that this President’s words strike at
fundamental standards of respect and tolerance, in violation
of our constitutional tradition. But the issue before
us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead
the significance of those statements in reviewing a
Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a
matter within the core of executive responsibility. In
doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a
particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency
itself.
The president clearly has the authority, the proclamation is religiously neutral, case closed.

edit: forgot the link.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/17-965.pdf
 

Similar History Discussions