US Supreme Court FINALLY overrules "Korematsu"

Recusant

Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
2,600
Sector N after curfew
#31
Cite any way in which the beliefs of the baker were mocked. Certainly the majority decision didn't make that claim, so I wonder where you got that notion.
You are correct, disparaged would have been a better word.
In what way were his beliefs "disparaged"? The majority decision no more claimed that than it claimed his beliefs were mocked. The court said that the commissioner's comments displayed a lack of religious neutrality, nothing more.

Persons applying for visas to enter the US do so under US law, so your claim that they aren't subject to US law is incorrect. The vetting process takes place under US law; the people who undergo the vetting process are subject to US law during that process. Perhaps you're trying to put this outside US law so that you can claim that the US Constitution isn't applicable to them. That's missing the point by a wide margin. The US government is subject to the US Constitution, and its actions can be questioned in regards to compliance with the Constitution.
But the travel ban doesn't apply to people who have entered the visa process. It applies before that, so no, a citizen of Yemen who desires to enter the US is not, by that fact alone, subject to US law.
The claim of hardship from religious bias is brought by those in the US, subject to its laws, who cannot reunite with relatives.
Valid point. If a person is barred from even applying for a visa because they are citizens of a particular country, they cannot be said to be subject to US law. However, earlier you cited US law: "§1152(a)(1)(A) prohibits discrimination in the allocation of immigrant visas based on nationality and other traits." What are we to make of that? The travel ban cites national security concerns, but those concerns were supposedly justified by a review process of questionable worth.

History tells us that there are over 100 Supreme Court decisions that have been overturned by subsequent courts.
And many more have not. Irrelevant.
Its relevance is that this decision could very well be overturned, and that it cannot be claimed as conclusive evidence that the travel ban conforms with the Constitution.

There is no provision for a review process in the section you quote, and I wasn't claiming that there was any statutory necessity for a review. What I was pointing out is that the review process that the majority decision cites as support for the travel ban is highly questionable. Did you bother to look at the link that I provided? In view of Frank Wuco's multiple public statements, it was a foregone conclusion that any review that he lead would agree with whatever travel ban was put in place as long as it was primarily intended to exclude Muslims from entry. The idea that he would come back with any other conclusion is fanciful.
Since the only standard is "The president finds", none of this really matters. Sometimes there is no formal finding at all, merely a few sentences stating the new policy.
Agreed. However, the US Supreme Court repeatedly cited the review overseen by Wuco in support of its decision. In reality whatever support it provides is highly questionable. There is good reason to doubt that its conclusions are the product of an impartial inquiry.

The review process was never intended to be anything but a rubber stamp.
Opinion is not fact.
Do you believe that review process overseen by Wuco produced a report that the Supreme Court should be relying on as one of the primary bases for its decision?

We know from the public record that the intention was to institute a travel ban on Muslims. The reason it doesn't mention religion is because it was tailored in an attempt to avoid being blatantly unconstitutional.
A travel ban on Muslims that leaves 92% unaffected is not a travel ban on Muslims.
The evidence (public expressions of animus toward Muslims, subsequent request to make a travel ban aimed at Muslims "legal" and public expressions of dissatisfaction that the travel ban wasn't broad enough) shows the primary motivation. Under the Constitution of the US, such animus on the part of the government is unacceptable, regardless of how many Muslims are affected.

As detailed in Sotomayor's dissent, Congress has already addressed those national-security concerns.
Irrelevant, and the majority disagreed.
Basically what the majority said is that the travel ban can be justified as supplementary to the statutes passed by Congress. It didn't rule on whether the existing vetting process was or was not sufficient to address national security concerns. In fact it specifically refrained from considering that question.

Again, I refer you to the reasoning underlying the court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop. The decision doesn't address the Commission's rationale, nor does your "new journalistic standard of 'sources familiar with his thinking'" come into it. The decision hinges on is what was said by people responsible for the action being addressed by the court. In Masterpiece Cakeshop, the court cites the commissioner referring to harmful actions being justified by religion (not mocking the baker's religion, nor even mocking any religion at all). The court stated plainly that the commissioner's words showed that the obligation of religious neutrality had not been fulfilled. The multiple negative statements issued previous to (as well as after) the institution of the travel bans show an undeniable lack of religious neutrality. The court in this decision appears to be operating under a double standard.
Not at all the same thing.
What if our commissioners conducted a religiously neutral, unbiased, and to all appearances fair hearing. But one of our commissioners had previously made public statements disparaging Christianity and its adherents. By your logic, that fact would invalidate the hearing, regardless of how impartial it seemed.
I find this sort of "divining of motive" troubling, and so should you.
There is no divining necessary here. We have public statements that leave no room for doubt regarding motive, regardless of the majority's willingness to overlook the significance of those statements.

If President Obama had issued the exact same proclamation, would it have been unconstitutional?
A legal proclamation is a legal proclamation, and so the court found. Yes, we have a system of checks and balances, but there must also be deference to the other branches. The Court can't usurp a power which by statute and precedent belongs to the executive based on suspicions of motive.
I will not engage with your attempt to make this a partisan political discussion. If any president repeatedly expresses animus toward a particular religion, issues an unequivocal statement declaring an intention to ban all adherents of that religion from entry and goes to his advisors and tells them to make such a ban "legal," then whatever justifications for that ban the executive subsequently produces are suspect. Serious consideration of the public statements should have been given by the court in deciding whether the action is constitutional. The majority essentially ducked its responsibility and discounted the public record in favor of relying on the fact that there is an alternate "plausible" reason for the travel ban.
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,386
Seattle
#32
I saw this painting in the Tacoma Art museum. Roger Shimomura and his family were detained during WWII. Their ancestors settled in Seattle in 1900es. His sister died of meningitis when the family temporarily moved to Chicago after the internment.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,386
Seattle
#33
This page of US history is very unfair. At the same time it seems that the Japanese in the US fared way better during WWII in comparison to inmates of concentration camps in Europe or victims of Stalin's deportations. Some Japanese students were allowed to attend colleges during the deportation.

One question that bothers me is the financial side. The deported Japanese Americans lost their property. Part was reimbursed after WWII, some reparations paid during Reagan's time. But I would like to ask those who know, what do they think, was there financially enough justice done to victims of Japanese deportations, or not?
 
Last edited:

unclefred

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
6,729
Oregon coastal mountains
#34
The Supreme's did a bang up job with this one.

Botully is declared the winner of this interweb set to.

He is "Right on the Internet". This time.
 

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,448
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#35
In what way were his beliefs "disparaged"? The majority decision no more claimed that than it claimed his beliefs were mocked. The court said that the commissioner's comments displayed a lack of religious neutrality, nothing more.
News articles, including Bloomberg used the word "disparaged". But whatever. Statements at his hearing included saying his sincerely held religious beliefs were "one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric...".
"Lack of religious neutrality" indeed. None of that applies here, though. Our baker's claim wasn't that a commissioner had previously criticized Christianity thus the whole proceeding was invalid.
In this case, an American citizen was entitled to a fair hearing and didn't get one.

Valid point. If a person is barred from even applying for a visa because they are citizens of a particular country, they cannot be said to be subject to US law. However, earlier you cited US law: "§1152(a)(1)(A) prohibits discrimination in the allocation of immigrant visas based on nationality and other traits." What are we to make of that?
What we make of that is exactly what it says. Doesn't apply here, since no one affected by the ban has entered the visa process.


The travel ban cites national security concerns, but those concerns were supposedly justified by a review process of questionable worth.
Not supposedly, they were justified, by the report. Everyone knew it was going to SCOTUS, before any ban was even issued. Of course they did what they could to be sure it would be held up. Thus the unprecedented report, which again, is not required by statute.

Its relevance is that this decision could very well be overturned, and that it cannot be claimed as conclusive evidence that the travel ban conforms with the Constitution.
Since the decision applies to this particular ban, it would need to be heard by the Court again, which I think is highly unlikely. Equally unlikely is a constitutional challenge to the statute itself.


Agreed. However, the US Supreme Court repeatedly cited the review overseen by Wuco in support of its decision. In reality whatever support it provides is highly questionable. There is good reason to doubt that its conclusions are the product of an impartial inquiry.
Doesn't need to be impartial. Every administration has the Justice Department and endless lawyers making sure various things are legal, or even seeing if a desired policy can be justified under the law. Even GWB's torture underwent this process.

Do you believe that review process overseen by Wuco produced a report that the Supreme Court should be relying on as one of the primary bases for its decision?
For determining whether "the President finds", yes.

The evidence (public expressions of animus toward Muslims, subsequent request to make a travel ban aimed at Muslims "legal" and public expressions of dissatisfaction that the travel ban wasn't broad enough) shows the primary motivation. Under the Constitution of the US, such animus on the part of the government is unacceptable, regardless of how many Muslims are affected.
The criteria under the ban is simply nationality. People of certain nationalities, or classes of people within those nationalities, were banned. You're using Trump's previous rhetoric to infer religious bias. The proclamation is, as the Court repeatedly said, neutral on it's face. This is certainly reinforced by the fact that it included Venezuela and North Korea, and did not include arbitrarily any Muslim country. Those listed are, we can agree, unsettled.


Basically what the majority said is that the travel ban can be justified as supplementary to the statutes passed by Congress. It didn't rule on whether the existing vetting process was or was not sufficient to address national security concerns. In fact it specifically refrained from considering that question.
Of course it did. The Court has no standards at all with which to judge these things. That's why it's left to the other branches.


There is no divining necessary here. We have public statements that leave no room for doubt regarding motive, regardless of the majority's willingness to overlook the significance of those statements.
Apparently there is doubt, if the court ruled otherwise.


I will not engage with your attempt to make this a partisan political discussion. If any president repeatedly expresses animus toward a particular religion, issues an unequivocal statement declaring an intention to ban all adherents of that religion from entry and goes to his advisors and tells them to make such a ban "legal," then whatever justifications for that ban the executive subsequently produces are suspect. Serious consideration of the public statements should have been given by the court in deciding whether the action is constitutional. The majority essentially ducked its responsibility and discounted the public record in favor of relying on the fact that there is an alternate "plausible" reason for the travel ban.
By "Obama", I simply meant "another president". No partisan point intended. The question was, essentially, is the proclamation "neutral on it's face"?
If so, the court did well in not meddling based on perceptions of motive, especially given who was affected by the ban.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions