SCOTUS Opinions [Thursday, June 20, 2024]

scotusblog ^ | 6/20/24 | staff

[JohnBovenmyer]

For your thesis I’d hope and expect you did some research on the purported ‘other side.’ It’s been a decade since I read Malkin’s book. I can’t recall all her specific purported evidence, although I do recall an interesting tale of one of the Pearl Harbor raiders. Who was shot down and parachuted onto Hawaii (possibly a different island, I forget) where he murdered some civilians before being caught. My remembered overall impression was there was a lot more reason to suspect bad actors within the Japanese community than popularly claimed. Just as over the years I’ve seen several things that make me suspect FDR was NOT surprised by Pearl Harbor and wanted the attack to happen, but expected a much more palatable casualty total. The shocking reality resulted in a huge coverup of probably the worst charges FDR could have faced.

[OldGoatCPO]

The thesis would not have made it past my professor's wastebasket had I not used resources from both sides. I also used data from the government and actual government documents from that period, including documents used in a case (Oregon or Washington State) where a Nisei tried to fight internment. Internet was dial-up back then and not as user-friendly. I had to do actual physical research and even tried phone calls to internees. Most would not talk about it out of shame, and for the same reason, many of them refused the government's reparations for illegally incarcerating them. Their grandchildren and great-grandchildren do not share the shame, and they have kept the history of this injustice from disappearing.

In 1948 it was determined that 400 million dollars were lost by internees, with the post-war government compensating only 38 million dollars of that. The property was lost because the property was "vacated" and owners were forced to sell for pennies on the dollar. Those who did not sell often lost their property to banks as mortgages went unpaid while incarcerated. In today's money, over 1.9 billion dollars. Not sure how Malkin justified that.

There are two sides to every argument, but only one Constitution. The internment, at a minimum, violated the Constitutional rights of the second and third-generation Americans whose ancestors happened to be Japanese. Malkin's book was not in print when I did my thesis. Lots of bad actors on the political right would hate to see them start locking up all conservatives to avoid issues with those bad actors. However, a few ignorant pundits and actors on the left have called for that.

[Guenevere]

Bttt

[JohnBovenmyer]

>only one Constitution

I agree with that, but seriously doubt FDR did. It is certainly possible for those who generally see government action as “solutions” rather than, like the Framers as “potential new problems,” to detect, while things were otherwise generally going badly, additional problems of then uncertain size and leap to bad, overly broad, actions. The feeling that you “have to do something” when you don’t know what to do is dangerous. Understanding that doesn’t forgive any resulting bad consequences, but it does help avoid yet another overreaction to them. Victimologists too often demand vast, uncompromising concessions premised on real past transgressions while claiming themselves to have been without sin. While the transgressors, recalling the events in greys rather than B&W, may be willing to admit in hindsight they were wrong, but weren’t willing to admit they were evil fools, one or both sides are apt to stay mad.

Trying to use past victimhood for present advances pushes us apart when we should be pulling together. Historically all groups have both sinned and been sinned against. The generation of Japanese ancestry that was sinned against here sinned against China there. Their descendants collectively recall the former more than the latter. The Chinese recall the latter more than their prior, kamakazi blocked, reverse efforts. Very human, most groups have similar tales.

Certainly, we should study the past and learn to dodge repeating past errors. One of the great strengths of FR is the vast expertise and knowledge herein. Including your scholarship! But there are plenty of error today and in the recent past (eg J6) which can still be better fixed than errors of the distant path.

The bigger problem here is that we had sinned against ourselves. We hadn’t lived up to our ideal — the Constitution — while then still claiming to revere it. We might have thought the “It’s not a suicide pact” exception applied, but missed understanding how addictive using that was. I fear FDR’s de facto less than reverence for the Constitution has become common. And pray that public ire over Biden overreach can push us to again recognize the Framers’ wisdom and repair the leaks we, over time, inflicted on it.