![]() So what of Korematsu’s legacy in 2015? Writing today in the Los Angeles Times, scholars John Inazu and Karen Tani wrote, “ Korematsu told our U.S. For Justice Scalia to make that quote now during this time is very scary,” she said. ![]() Clearly, the lessons in many cases have not been learned. the United States in 1944 is more relevant today than it was then. ![]() On C-SPAN’s Landmark Decision series, co-sponsored by the National Constitution Center, Karen Korematsu, Fred Korematsu’s daughter, recently spoke about the decision’s broad impact and Scalia. It’s no justification but it is the reality,” Scalia said. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again-in time of war. “You are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again,” Scalia said, citing a Latin phrase meaning, “in times of war, the laws fall silent.” Speaking at an event in Hawaii in 2014, Scalia said Americans shouldn’t assume that another Korematsu situation couldn’t occur in a wartime situation. “ Korematsu continues to provoke popular shame.”Īnd there are now often-repeated quotes from Justice Antonin Scalia in 2014 about Korematsu that have resurfaced recently. But it has been effectively overridden by other actors, and in the court of public opinion,” Spiro argues. Temple Law’s Peter Spiro, in a widely read New York Times op-ed piece, noted that Korematsu’s impact is the existence of a broad social stigma on race-based court decisions. “Technically, it remains good law. "To the extent there are precedents for this kind of blanket discrimination, they are ones, like the Japanese internment camps upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu, which all reasonable constitutional experts consider tragic mistakes that we should not repeat."Īmong other scholars, Korematsu’s legacy is related to the proposed Muslim ban in broader ways. Stanford Law professor Jenny Martinez told NBC News earlier this month that she saw Korematsu involved in this debate in a general context. The current legal debate over Trump’s proposal is more focused on the established powers of Congress to establish immigration policy and a canon of older Supreme Court cases about immigration exclusions based on race and other characters. The big difference between Trump’s proposal and FDR’s executive orders is that Trump would seek to ban Muslims, a religious group, from entering the United States, while Roosevelt restricted the constitutional rights of an ethnic group already in the United States (and in many cases, who were legal citizens). “If you look at what he was doing, it was far worse … and he’s one of the most highly respected presidents - they name highways after him,” Trump said. “What I’m doing is no different than FDR,” Trump told ABC on December 7. Trump frequently pointed to the Roosevelt administration exclusion orders when the businessman announced his proposed Muslim ban earlier this month. Trump has started an intense national debate among voters – and scholars – about his proposal to temporarily exclude the entrance of Muslims into the United States until authorities can properly determine a general terrorist threat. But as the 2016 presidential election approaches, the debate over Korematsu has new life, as one of the key points in the controversial Muslim Ban proposed by Republican candidate Donald Trump. The Decemmajority decision has been picked apart over the years by legal scholars and its anniversary duly noted. “After that, it depends on which side of the political aisle the experts occupy,” he said. Savage said that Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu were the three Supreme Court decisions that liberals and conservatives agreed were historically bad. In 2009, Los Angeles Times Supreme Court correspondent David G. The decision is often regarded as one of the three worst handed down by the Court in its long history. Chiaramonte v.It was 69 years ago today that the Supreme Court handed down the Korematsu decision, which validated putting American citizens in internment camps during wartime conditions – based on their race or ethnicity.C.A.), leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed S.C.C.A. Public Accountants Council for Ontario (2004), 71 O.R. ![]() LeVan, 2008 ONCA 388, application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed S.C.C.A. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v.Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed ( 2015) Separation Agreements and Disclosure Obligations Ewing, 2009 ABCA 227, leave to appeal to SCC refused S.C.C.A. Statutory Pathway For Protection Hearing.Appointing Counsel For the Subject Children.Separation Agreements and Disclosure Obligations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |