Posted on 03/01/2025 8:07:00 AM PST by Twotone
While trying to catch President Donald Trump’s solicitor general nominee in a “gotcha” moment, Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin apparently defended enforcement of the infamous Supreme Court ruling that upheld the internment of more than one hundred thousand Japanese Americans during World War II.
“Let’s go back to Korematsu — describe for me that circumstance that you think relieved an official from obeying a court order,” Durbin said to solicitor general nominee Dean John Sauer. “As bad as it was, that court order was followed for years, was it not?”
In Korematsu v. U.S., the Supreme Court upheld the internment of 120,000 Japanese civilians during WWII. Sauer said the order “has now been, I think, correctly repudiated by virtually everyone.”
“I just wonder whether some historians might think we’d be better off if it hadn’t been followed,” Sauer said.
Durbin made the remark while questioning Sauer in his first confirmation hearing on Feb. 26 — alongside Harmeet Dhillon, nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights, and Aaron Reitz, nominee for assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy. If confirmed as solicitor general, Sauer will oversee litigation on behalf of the United States at the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
His parents named him correctly........DICK
Little Dick needs a boot in the keister.
Supreme court: if we rule wrong, we will fix it in 100 years after 70 years of it being obvious. Like our fancy thin robes that serve no purpose EITHER?
Internment camps, dred scot, abortion, buffer zones, gay marriage....what useless twits
Durbin was trying to use going along with a court “precedent” as being “constitutional” while repudiating, and returnng to court against a “precedent” is not. Durbin is wrong. SCOTUS is not “the Constitution” and is not infallible.
I never like when it becomes so easy and popular to denounce something or someone.
No interest in defending slavery, but we had slavery and that was the evil. Expecting a bunch of Southern Supreme Court Justices to overturn the consequences of slavery would be highly unrealistic. Defying the decision? Maybe. But that would have torn the country apart sooner, an interesting prospect.
Korematsu - Hm. WW2, survival of the nation, dual citizenship. Better not to have done the internment camps? Ok. Defy the law during WW2? That’s a maybe as well.
Just my reaction. We needed to survive WW2.
Especially some of the newer Justices now sitting.
There are always exceptions. But in Korematsu, people were essentially jailed without having committed a crime. If they were dual citizens, perhaps they should’ve been deported. And no effort was made to protect their assets. They lost everything. That was truly an evil decision, & it’s sad that more did not stand against it. Including SCOTUS.
No interest in defending slavery, but we had slavery and that was the evil. Expecting a bunch of Southern Supreme Court Justices to overturn the consequences of slavery would be highly unrealistic.
The U.K. banned slavery but compensated slave owners. But the U.K.’s government really isn’t limited by written constitution. And the U.K. was rich enough (or could easily borrow the money). I don’t think any state could have done that.
That said, the Dred Scott decision declaring that blacks, free or slaves , had no rights was an abomination that was still ‘the law of the land’ even after the Civil War. Took the 14th Amendment to undo the Scott ruling.
BTTT
Just another Illinois loser.
Now what does the queer Japanese guy who spent time in one of FDR’s internment camps say?
Now what does the queer Japanese guy who spent time in one of FDR’s internment camps say?
“Oh my!”
Does the threat of a Japanese invasion constitute a "Case of Invasion". I think so.
The way Japanese internment was handled was very unfair to the Japanese affected.
It was also pretty unfair to draft nineteen-year-olds and demand that they march through machinegun fire to hold the Normandy beaches.
I think our Founders were quite aware of just how difficult it is to conduct a war.
Their homes and stuff should have been protected, for sure.
What’s interesting and I don’t know how true this is, is part of the reason for the internment camps was to protect the innocent Japanese Americans from retribution by some of the virulent anti-Japanese sentiment people felt.
Which, knowing human nature and our history, is plausible.
Excellent post—you nailed it.
The judges are human—and their track record is dubious.
Democrats are the party of slavery and the party that interned the Japanese.
There was certainly a lot of fear that we might be invaded, but it hadn’t happened yet.
Was the internment a necessary evil or not? We’ll never know for sure, but it was certainly against our basic civil rights & principles.
Another reason I have read is, there were quite a few spies amongst the population, and we knew who they were because we had cracked the Japanese codes. However, had we only arrested the spies, the Japanese would have known we had cracked their codes and changed them, so, to ensure continued use of the broken codes, we interred everyone, including the spies. The plan “worked” - the codes weren’t changed, at the cost of the rights of many thousands of innocent people
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.