Speaking to law students at the University of Hawaii today, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia discussed the Korematsu v. United States ruling of 1944, which affirmed the right of the US government to force people into internment camps regardless of citizenship.
Scalia said it was wrong for the court to make that ruling, and said the case has since been repudiated. At the same time, he cautioned that people are “kidding themselves” if they think the same thing couldn’t happen again.
“In times of war, the laws fall silent,” Scalia said, adding that he would “not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification, but it is the reality.”
Technically speaking Korematsu v. United States was never overturned, but Korematsu’s conviction for evading internment was eventually overturned in 1983, and the Justice Department said the case was “in error” in 2011 and would not be used as the basis for future internment.
Scalia’s assessment of the potential for a repeat of the abuse of internment reflects similar comments from late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who in 1998 said the question of presidential abuses in wartime was “largely academic” and that “there is no reason to think that future wartime presidents will act differently,” or that future Supreme Courts would be any more willing to stand up to them.
This jackass, who has had a significant role in expanding lawless government, absolves himself from any responsibility for the current and future abuses of government power.
Yeah, and I have the uneasy feeling that Scalia–that authoritarian shyster–would be all for it.
He would regretfully vote to uphold, while writing in his concurring opinion that the decision can not be held as a precedent. That's basically what he did in Bush vs Gore.
Fine that he recognizes that internment could happen again.
But will he and/or the Supremes rule correctly and unequivocally when they have the chance? Their record is not so good, especially since 9-11.
Given the Rehnquist statement as paraphrased above, it seems more likely that the Supremes won't do anything except turtle down. [hockey terminology for throwing your arms and hands over your head to protect it from a serious pummeling]
I'm also sure they won't be concerned with public outrage at their inaction.
Scalia is one of the problems as to WHY the Courts fall silent, it is this attitude that was allowed such things as Torture and worse the acceptance of that torture with out punishment for the torturer. Even though there are significant laws to make it illegal! It should also be remembered that Scalia in Hamdin V Rumsfeld was in the minority, he was continuing the stance, that Presidents can do as they please!
Scalia and others should remember this they have the power, neigh the responsibility to make sure the Constitution operates exactly the same in time of War as in time of peace! To allow the excuse of unconstitutionality because it is a time of war is in fact a travesty! Unless the courts are closed because of war the Supreme court has over riding Constitutional oversight, Not the Congress nor the President, but the Courts, and they should exercise it!
Make the Ruling, those with the intestinal Fortitude told Bush in Hamdin his laws were illegal, and that decision worked! Sadly Scalia didn't have that intestinal fortitude, although he did in Hamdi, just not the will to carry his ruling through! Letting the Lower Court, the Apeals court make a mockery of his decision shows that he really is to timid to take a stand and stop POTUS' from doing unconstitutional acts in the name of security of state!
That was my thought. Under the Constitution, it would be the judges with their lifetime appointments that should be holding up the rule of law in such times. When the elected reps of the leggy and the executive branches go nuts in a popular fury during a war, it should be the Supreme Court that stands in the way and upholds the law. On one hand, Scalia seems to realize that in the past, as he says the ruling that forced Americans with Japanese heritage into camps was the wrong ruling. But then he basically says that he and the other judges would violate their oath to uphold the Constitution and gladly do it again in the modern Terror Wars.
Scalia should be interned somewhere where he cannot hurt anybody.
What he is actually hinting at is that this ADMINISTRATION WITH THEIR EVIL MINIONS IN THE TRAITOROUS CONGRESS could be HOUSED THERE..FOREVER..THAT'S FINE WITH ME..
"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia discussed the Korematsu v. United States ruling of 1944, which affirmed the right of the US government to force people into internment camps…"
Mr Ditz
Please note that the government does not have "rights", it has "powers". The difference is important.
Very important point, and one lost in modern rhetoric. Growing up, you used to hear the Soviet bloc talk constantly about the 'rights of the state'. Nowadays, its the American government and its propagandists that constantly talk about the 'rights' of the state. Yet, Jim is exactly right, in the United States of America, the 'rights' belong to the people. As does the 'power' at a fundamental level. Some of that power is granted to the government to better protect and defend our 'rights' and to provide for common security and well-being. But, the original revolutionary idea of "America" is that its the people who have 'rights', not the government. We should be careful not to let the rhetoric of the authoritarians and their claims of 'rights' for the states get into our own arguments and minds. It is an easy mistake to make, bombarded by propaganda as we all are.
co-incidence on a day when john brennan is suggesting a false flag coming from syrian alciada
Where has Scalia been? In the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans innocents Muslims were in fact rounded up and detained for months in Japanese like internment camps. Read the fascinating true story in the book "Zeitouin". Oh that's right Muslims don't count.
The sort of bullying and sadistic behavior Zeitoun experienced is a daily experience for Muslims returning from vacations in Canada. I have a friend of Pakistani origin, a computer professional who has worked for the same US corporation for over 15 years, who was detained and even handcuffed in front of his family for several hours with absolutely no justification or cause given. He was eventually released with no charges. This is not an isolated case. On The Media had a report on the prevalence of this sort of thing several months ago.
jc21131,
Yes, Zeitouin is a good but troubling book; it demonstrates the fascist mentality of post 9-11 policing in America. Scalia has a record of aiding the plutocrats take over America – damn right, he would favor concentration camps for the those of the 99% that might try to resist.
It's good to know that the rule of law in America is arbitrary and the Constitution applies sometimes. Doesn't apply other times and America's commander-in-cheese is ultimately the "decider."
Any particular 'identifiable' group could be targeted for internment. It doesn't work without one.
“In times of war, the laws fall silent”, and it’s ALWAYS “a time of war”. How convenient is that?
Empty bloviations from a 'law and order' guy who never fails to expand police-state power at the expense of individual liberty (checkpoints, cavity searches, sexual molestations ad nauseum) when given the chance. A pox on him and his black-robed bretheren – and 'sisters'.
Yup. Like all judges, they're political hacks and don't deserve respect.
Should the government attempt to imprison American citizens in "internment" camps without first allowing due process of law (right to counsel, right to trial by their peers, etc.) the government would crash headfirst into a solid wall of opposition from millions of armed American patriots. Instead of citizens being interned, the politicians and those aiding the politicians would find themselves briefly interned, given quick trials and then stood up against a wall to face a firing squad.
Just like in 1942, right?
Fat chance. If it did happen, millions of armed American patriots would soon be dead, along with many members of their family. (Their 16 year old sons having chosen the "wrong father.")
This is the lead into interment camps. They want them
The Constitution created the Supreme Court to rule on Constitutional questions, but Scalia is basically saying the Supreme Court is unwilling or unable to do that. If that's true, then what reason is there for the Court to exist?
To protect those who are truly important, the artificial "persons."
The supreme court is lazy…does not want to tell the congress and the executive branch that they are not fulfilling their duties and ignores their own decisions. The court just does not fight beyond its own self-made boundaries of security. Micky Mice of men and women.
sounds like a threat, eh?
The real shame of the Japanese internment was this:
"Charles Fahy, an appointee of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, deliberately hid from the court a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence that concluded the Japanese Americans on the West Coast did not pose a military threat. The report indicated there was no evidence Japanese Americans were disloyal, were acting as spies or were signaling enemy submarines, as some at the time had suggested."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la…