SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[Dill]

(06-26-2018, 12:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Hearing Ken (of @popehat fame) talk about this ruling, it is a lot about how what the policymaker says (i.e. Trump's comments about it being a Muslim ban) are applied for judicial scrutiny of a policy when it is neutral on its face. With this ruling, the court has said it doesn't matter as long as the policy is written in a neutral way.

But they overturned Koramatsu vs the US today too, didn't they?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/26/supreme-court-overrules-korematsu-case-hated-civil-libertarians/734630002/

In doing that, they have to argue that the "face test" is not valid when racial bias factored into the formation of law/policy and knowledge thereof is suppressed.

I think that was Sotomayor's point too--all Trump's explicit talk of banning Muslims, then suddenly judges must discount that if the policy is written to exclude the word "Muslim"?  

LOL according to Hugo Black, the Japanese were interned because we were at war with Japan, not because of race.  What about Italians and Germans and Romanians and Bulgarians in 1944? Might as well ask today "What about Saudi Arabia and Morocco" and a few dozen other countries not included in the Trump ban. President has the power, blah blah, precedent, blah blah, national security.

Yes, the appeal to national security in a state of emergency is another point of contact between the two cases--only WWII was a real state of emergency.  Anyway, the appeal to national security is much favored by leaders of all stripes, since it can reduce all the usual policy friction offered by democratic institutions.

I'm wondering how Trump's ban will look down the historical road--another Korematsu? Plessy vs Ferguson?  A lot will depend on the kind of country we become.  Very consequential, blocking Obama's right to appoint a justice.