Just read - no comments needed

[My Name Is Kate]

From my (somewhat limited) knowledge of history, Taney is correct in stating that at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, black people were generally regarded as inferior and undeserving of the basic rights afforded to whites. However, since the Founding Fathers deliberately made no reference to race when they wrote the Constitution, it cannot be inferred that they intended for black people to forever be denied citizenship.

[L Verge]

Kate - I think you and I had the same professors...

Now, Just for fun: Instead of reading quotes from modern authors with minimal legal background, but loads of "hindsight," why don't those of us with a day or two to spare do it the old-fashioned, historical way? Let's read the entire Dred Scott Decision, including the opinions of each Associate Justice who decided to offer one! And while reading, let's analyze the entire document and view it from the perspective of the 1850s and the men who wrote it. That's something many of us seem to have difficulty doing (even learned historians who have one or two areas of expertise and make history fit their conclusions).

Oh, by the way, if you thought that the final paperwork on the case was short, sweet, and to the point -- guess again. I said you would need a day or two, and that's what I meant. Go here to get started - https://www.lectlaw.com/files/case23.htm

We make fun of lawyers, but I can't imagine what reading and analyzing real legal cases and opinions must do to one's brain...

---

(06-23-2018 12:31 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Kate - I think you and I had the same professors...

Now, Just for fun: Instead of reading quotes from modern authors with minimal legal background, but loads of "hindsight," why don't those of us with a day or two to spare do it the old-fashioned, historical way? Let's read the entire Dred Scott Decision, including the opinions of each Associate Justice who decided to offer one! And while reading, let's analyze the entire document and view it from the perspective of the 1850s and the men who wrote it. That's something many of us seem to have difficulty doing (even learned historians who have one or two areas of expertise and make history fit their conclusions).

Oh, by the way, if you thought that the final paperwork on the case was short, sweet, and to the point -- guess again. I said you would need a day or two, and that's what I meant. Go here to get started - https://www.lectlaw.com/files/case23.htm

We make fun of lawyers, but I can't imagine what reading and analyzing real legal cases and opinions must do to one's brain...

BTW: When you open the case, you will notice that someone with Lectlaw has added a "non-prejudicial" introduction, calling this a "Racist Decision."

[JMadonna]

(06-23-2018 11:39 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  From my (somewhat limited) knowledge of history, Taney is correct in stating that at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, black people were generally regarded as inferior and undeserving of the basic rights afforded to whites. However, since the Founding Fathers deliberately made no reference to race when they wrote the Constitution, it cannot be inferred that they intended for black people to forever be denied citizenship.

At that time the constitution gave the states sole discretion over who could become citizens - not the Federal Government

[AussieMick]

So I guess a major issue for Taney (to ignore or interpret in a way that suited) was Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." ?

[JMadonna]

(06-24-2018 04:18 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  So I guess a major issue for Taney (to ignore or interpret in a way that suited) was Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." ?

Constitution said -If you were a citizen living in SC you had the same status in NY. However, I believe Taney was trying to answer the question that if you weren't a citizen in SC did the state of NY have the power to name you a citizen in NY (and was SC bound by NY's decision).

[David Lockmiller]

The New York Times reported today:

The Supreme Court has upheld President Trump’s ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, saying on Tuesday that the president’s power to secure U.S. borders was not undermined by the incendiary statements he made about Muslims.

The court’s liberals denounced the decision, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor compared to the 1944 ruling that upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II, Korematsu v. United States. That decision has been almost universally recognized as a shameful mistake, and the court overturned it on Tuesday.

This was a 5-4 decision of the current U.S. Supreme Court.

I guess that we can all see now the difficulty that President Lincoln faced going into the Civil War with a five justice majority of the Supreme Court that was "at heart" pro-slavery, including the Chief Justice Roger Taney. No wonder now that President Lincoln added that paragraph in his first inaugural address regarding the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

[JMadonna]

(06-27-2018 06:31 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  The New York Times reported today:


Justice Sonia Sotomayor compared to the 1944 ruling that upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II, Korematsu v. United States.

You'd really have to be ignorant of the past to believe that comparison. Korematsu v. United States. upheld an unprecedented assertion of executive power. It imposed military rule on civilians without a declaration of martial law and sentenced a segment of the population to internal exile under armed guard. These were Americans that suddenly had no country.

The travel ban merely restricts people from terrorist countries from entering the US. No one is imprisoned and no one takes their citizenship away from them.

This has been done many times by many presidents. The vote should have been 9-0.

[David Lockmiller]

(06-27-2018 07:15 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 06:31 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  The New York Times reported today:


Justice Sonia Sotomayor compared to the 1944 ruling that upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II, Korematsu v. United States.

You'd really have to be ignorant of the past to believe that comparison. Korematsu v. United States. upheld an unprecedented assertion of executive power. It imposed military rule on civilians without a declaration of martial law and sentenced a segment of the population to internal exile under armed guard. These were Americans that suddenly had no country.

The travel ban merely restricts people from terrorist countries from entering the US. No one is imprisoned and no one takes their citizenship away from them.

This has been done many times by many presidents. The vote should have been 9-0.

I would suggest that one of your sentences should read: "These were Americans [citizens] that suddenly had no country."

"The Lost Battalion" refers to the 1st Battalion, 141st Infantry (36th Infantry Division, originally Texas National Guard), which was surrounded by German forces in the Vosges Mountains on 24 October 1944. The battalion was cut off by the Germans, and attempts by the 36th Division's other two battalions to extricate it failed. The final rescue attempt was made by the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, a segregated unit composed of Nisei, or second-generation Japanese Americans. The 442nd had been given a period of rest after heavy fighting to liberate Bruyères and Biffontaine, but General Dahlquist called them back early to relieve the beleaguered 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the 36th. In five days of battle, from 26 to 30 October 1944, the 442nd broke through German defenses and rescued 211 men.The 442nd suffered over 800 casualties. (Wikipedia)

It took the U.S. Supreme Court 76 years to admit its mistake. But it is not really the same court, is it. And, why now? There had been a "Republican President appointed" majority of the Supreme Court for quite some time. Perhaps the "Republican" justices majority wanted to demonstrate just how important "citizen" rights are in comparison to non-citizen rights in construing provisions of the U.S. Constitution. And, what better means to accomplish this than by immediately correcting a mistake made by the U.S. Supreme Court 76 years ago.

Justice Kennedy has announced his retirement. And, President Trump now has a list of "pro-life" candidates from which to choose his replacement. How long will the Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court last in its present form, or any form?

Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell has already announced that there will be a confirmation vote of President Trump's pick this Fall, before the midterm elections. This is the same Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell who prevented a Senate confirmation vote for President Obama's pick to replace Justice Scalia, before the midterm elections at that time.

The New York Times reports:

Even as it upheld the travel ban, the court’s majority took a momentous step. It overruled the Korematsu case, officially reversing a wartime ruling that for decades has stood as an emblem of a morally repugnant response to fear.

Chief Justice Roberts said Tuesday’s decision was very different.

“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,” he wrote. “But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission.”

“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,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

Justice Sotomayor accused her colleagues in the majority of “unquestioning acceptance” of the president’s national security claims. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Sotomayor’s dissent.

In a second, milder dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, questioned whether the Trump administration could be trusted to enforce what he called “the proclamation’s elaborate system of exemptions and waivers.”

Justice Kennedy agreed that Mr. Trump should be allowed to carry out the travel ban, but he emphasized the need for religious tolerance.

[JMadonna]

(06-28-2018 12:21 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  [quote='JMadonna' pid='71787' dateline='1530141305']
[quote='David Lockmiller' pid='71782' dateline='1530095460']
The New York Times reported today:


Justice Sonia Sotomayor compared to the 1944 ruling that upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II,

It took the U.S. Supreme Court 76 years to admit its mistake. But it is not really the same court, is it. And, why now? There had been a "Republican President appointed" majority of the Supreme Court for quite some time. Perhaps the "Republican" justices majority wanted to demonstrate just how important "citizen" rights are in comparison to non-citizen rights in construing provisions of the U.S. Constitution. And, what better means to accomplish this than by immediately correcting a mistake made by the U.S. Supreme Court

Or maybe they just wanted to embarrass the liberals since they were the block that
Agreed with fdrs executive order.

[AussieMick]

"In a second, milder dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, questioned whether the Trump administration could be trusted to enforce what he called “the proclamation’s elaborate system of exemptions and waivers.”

Justice Kennedy agreed that Mr. Trump should be allowed to carry out the travel ban, but he emphasized the need for religious tolerance."

Could someone tell me how many people voted for the Supreme Court judges, and how many voted for Trump? (that's a rhetorical question)

Its just that I get quite annoyed that here in Australia we sometimes have a situation where High Court judges take it upon the themselves to interpret our Constitution so that it suits their own political purposes. Of course they would not like it to be put in those terms. No doubt they convince themselves (and many in the media) that they are coolly and independently assessing the executive decision and evaluating it with regard to the Constitution and what the Constitution developers intended.

Ok, ok. I'm not living in the US. But what happens in the US, and what your Supreme Court judges decide, certainly affects the rest of the world. So I claim the right to express an opinion.

I'm sure the High Court/Supreme Court judges are very very clever and much better educated than the rest of us. But I do get uncomfortable when they make decisions from on high which significantly impact a nation (and the world). Whether their name be Taney or Sotomeyer.

[L Verge]

(06-30-2018 11:16 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  "In a second, milder dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, questioned whether the Trump administration could be trusted to enforce what he called “the proclamation’s elaborate system of exemptions and waivers.”

Justice Kennedy agreed that Mr. Trump should be allowed to carry out the travel ban, but he emphasized the need for religious tolerance."

Could someone tell me how many people voted for the Supreme Court judges, and how many voted for Trump? (that's a rhetorical question)

Its just that I get quite annoyed that here in Australia we sometimes have a situation where High Court judges take it upon the themselves to interpret our Constitution so that it suits their own political purposes. Of course they would not like it to be put in those terms. No doubt they convince themselves (and many in the media) that they are coolly and independently assessing the executive decision and evaluating it with regard to the Constitution and what the Constitution developers intended.

Ok, ok. I'm not living in the US. But what happens in the US, and what your Supreme Court judges decide, certainly affects the rest of the world. So I claim the right to express an opinion.

I'm sure the High Court/Supreme Court judges are very very clever and much better educated than the rest of us. But I do get uncomfortable when they make decisions from on high which significantly impact a nation (and the world). Whether their name be Taney or Sotomeyer.

Well said, my friend! The true motives of the Supreme Court, as well as those of Presidents who have appointed them, are cleverly masked by those long, black robes (imo). It is a purely political environment where their merits are based on their real quaifications as liberals, conservatives, ethnic and religious backgrounds, etc.

President Trump has said that he will announce his choice on July 7th. Then we'll watch the politics swing into motion as the nomination is sent to the U.S. Senate for their opportunity to "Advise and Consent."

[David Lockmiller]

Three perspectives on Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944):

[W]e cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained. We cannot say that the war-making branches of the Government did not have ground for believing that, in a critical hour, such persons could not readily be isolated and separately dealt with, and constituted a menace to the national defense and safety which demanded that prompt and adequate measures be taken to guard against it.

[E]xclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members of the group, most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country. It was because we could not reject the finding of the military authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we sustained the validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group.

In the instant case, temporary exclusion of the entire group was rested by the military on the same ground. The judgment that exclusion of the whole group was, for the same reason, a military imperative answers the contention that the exclusion was in the nature of group punishment based on antagonism to those of Japanese origin. That there were members of the group who retained loyalties to Japan has been confirmed by investigations made subsequent to the exclusion. Approximately five thousand American citizens of Japanese ancestry refused to swear unqualified allegiance to the United States and to renounce allegiance to the Japanese Emperor, and several thousand evacuees requested repatriation to Japan.


TRUMP v. HAWAII

Opinion of the Court

Page 38

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.

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, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

Under these circumstances, the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy. We simply hold today that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim.

Because plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, we reverse the grant of the preliminary injunction as an abuse of discretion. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 32 (2008). The case now returns to the lower courts for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.

Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary to consider the propriety of the nationwide scope of the injunction issued by the District Court. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.


TRUMP v. HAWAII

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting

Page 28

In the intervening years since Korematsu, our Nation has done much to leave its sordid legacy behind. See, e.g. Civil Liberties Act of 1988, 50 U. S. C. App. §4211 et seq. (setting forth remedies to individuals affected by the executive order at issue in Korematsu); Non-Detention Act of 1971, 18 U. S. C. §4001(a) (forbidding the imprisonment or detention by the United States of any citizen absent an Act of Congress). Today, the Court takes the important step of finally overruling Korematsu, denouncing it as “gravely wrong the day it was decided.” Ante, at 38 (citing Korematsu, 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting)). This formal repudiation of a shameful precedent is laudable and long overdue. But it does not make the majority’s decision here acceptable or right. By blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one “gravely wrong” decision with another. Ante, at 38.

Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to account when they defy our most sacred legal commitments. Because the Court’s decision today has failed in that respect, with profound regret, I dissent.

[My Name Is Kate]

(06-28-2018 12:21 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Justice Kennedy has announced his retirement. And, President Trump now has a list of "pro-life" candidates from which to choose his replacement. How long will the Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court last in its present form, or any form?“

Roe vs. Wade never should have been decided by the Supreme Court. It is a matter to be decided by elected officials who are supposed to represent the people, preferably at the state level, where each state can vote its conscience. I'm not aware that the U.S. Constitution makes any reference to abortion or when citizenship of a potential human being begins.

[David Lockmiller]

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision issued in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted access to abortions. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

Later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.

In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States, Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-life and pro-choice camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.




The original framers of the U.S. Constitution were neither infallible or omniscient. Accordingly, "the Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added . . . ." On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state legislatures twelve proposed amendment, two of which, having to do with Congressional representation and Congressional pay, were not adopted. The remaining ten amendments became the Bill of Rights, and were ratified effective December 15, 1791.

But even this means of "permanently" deciding an important moral issue affecting the entire nation has not proven to be a permanent answer in at least once instance. The Eighteenth Amendment (Amendment XVIII) of the United States Constitution effectively established the prohibition of alcoholic beverages in the United States by declaring the production, transport, and sale of alcohol (though not the consumption or private possession) illegal. However, Amendment XXI, Section 1 states: "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

It is the current members of the U.S. Supreme Court who are charged with the duty of construing the meaning of provisions of the U.S Constitution in cases and issues therein coming before the Court.

The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, including Justice Kennedy, recently overturned the majority ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1944 in the case of Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944) with these words: "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."

[My Name Is Kate]

Prior to Roe vs. Wade, all states had laws banning abortion, with only a few making exceptions in special circumstances. That was a bit too harsh, imo. But then some radical activist women lawyers who wanted to legalize abortion, got hold of a young woman who did not want her (third) baby, so seven of nine men in black cloaks eventually overturned what the people of this country had decided.

Even if abortion had been an option back in 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was written, I think the Founding Fathers would not have been so arrogant as to make it the law of the land. I think they would have preferred to err on the side of caution, taking care to consider what might be offensive to God. Roe vs. Wade was a major milestone in the ongoing disintegration of the family, which is the core of civilization. Divorce, single parent families, families on welfare with no father are all commonplace now. Marriage isn't necessarily between a man and a woman anymore, and there are lots more than just the two genders that us old people grew up thinking there are.

I've never thought of myself as having really strong opinions on any of these topics. Just think if I did, though.

Here is an interesting article about the woman known as Jane Roe.

https://www.thoughtco.com/norma-mccorvey...on-3528239