Yes and no.
The government did not have to compensate anyone and, in theory since the precedent exists, the US could (for example) decide to intern all people of Middle Eastern descent in the US. That the US might reimburse their descendants in 2060 does not change anything.
But nor does overturning Korematsu. It isn’t like overturning it is going to be replaced with a Supreme Court decision saying “race based internment can never happen.” Any future attempt to intern based on, say, Middle Eastern descent, will be analyzed under strict scrutiny, whether Korematsu is ruled invalid or not. Because that is the current state of the law.
No, but I think it’s pretty much taken as read that Korematsu isn’t good law anymore.
ETA: villa put it much better.
Don’t get me wrong - Korematsu is a stain on the Supreme Court’s record, and I would heartily support a symbolic recognition that it was wrong when it happened (if that isn’t already in some decision).
But I am not going to waste one of my magic four overturnings on a decision that has zero actual current day effect.
The fact that limiting punitive damages to a factor of ten may (or may) not be a good idea, doesn’t mean it’s in the Constitution. Sounds like they were legislating from the bench. More problematic is the decision doesn’t even announce a clear rule, (such as a 10 to 1 ratio) but hints that “maybe 1 to 1 is the limit in some cases,” and “4 to 1” seems like a good limit too."
Lower courts are all over the map.
About Morse v. Frederick and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
In legal principal, I agree with Morse (in loco parantis, needing to prevent advocacy of illegal acts, etc.) but to be honest, I don’t see how all of that is reflective of the facts of the case.
Was it a school event? No
Was it on school grounds? No
Could it have reasonable been interpreted as satire? Sure
Did the principal have an alternative agenda? Hmmmm seizing the sign then doubling the suspension for quoting Jefferson. Seems like this lady’s idea of the 1st amendment is you have the right to STFU.
About Hazelwood, the district owns the paper (and no, I refuse to use the *Dole v SD *doctrine of we pay for it so we can control it) but an editor has got to have the right to say no whether at school or private newspaper. I don’t see a 1st Amendment violation for a decision-maker saying it’s not appropriate.
The idea that excessive fines might violate the Due Process Clause isn’t a new one. Goes back at least to 1909 (Waters-Pierce Oil v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86).
IIRC even the majority decision in Korematsu suggested they didn’t like it but felt they had to cede that decision to the other parts of the government.
I think what this and other decisions (such as Roe or Heller or Citizens United to name a few) indicate is that the “current state of the law” is whatever the SCOTUS says it is. Clearly they can back into a result one way or another if they want to. Nevermind how tortured the reasoning.
I once heard that a common traffic ticket was brought up to the supreme court and dismissed as trivial or some such legal term, possibly with a fine for wasting the courts time. I’m not sure if it’s true, but if so that is the one I’d like to see ‘overturned’ as hardly no other single issue the courts have heard effects so many people on a day to day ongoing basis and was perhaps (if this case really existed) one of the greatest uses of time the courts could have spent, pretty much their primary function, but blew it.
Well, if that is the case, then it shows even more why overturning it is a meaningless gesture. Korematsu or no Korematsu, if the Court feels it has to punt because it doesn’t have the army, it will. But my point is more general - Korematsu didn’t say "it is legitimate for the government to intern people based on race. It said that in this current situation, such internment was permissible. And the Court has since developed a stringent test for when such discrimination based on race is permissible - the idea of strict scrutiny.
That’s different to saying something like the abortion decisions should be overturned - there overturning has an important effect. It permits states to criminalize abortion where now they are not permitted to do so.
And, once again, Roe isn’t the current state of the law. Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey is the abortion decision that people should aim at. Or not so much, because it puts a pretty hefty dent in the rights guaranteed under Roe.
If such a case existed…
As regards the Supreme Court, how is it “pretty much their [sic] primary function” to review traffic tickets? What federal question is present there?
This shows again that the court can go pretty much anywhere it damn well feels like. Casey could have re-affirmed Roe, expanded on Roe, ended Roe completely or diminished Roe to some extent. I have no doubt you could sit any SCOTUS justice down and, as a practice exercise, have them come up with a legal rationale that would support any of those outcomes.
And Strict Scrutiny is hardly unassailable. Scalia and Thomas, off the top of my head, are two who seem to very much dislike it. If they were participating in this thread they may well list Korematsu just to get rid of that.
What if it was issued by tribal police in a federal park that crosses state lines bordering the reservation which straddles the US-Canadian border? And the person was stopped by the policeman in the first place because she was a black lesbian Santeria worshiper who was participating in religious animal sacrifice in a government car on her way to a field she owned (which the state was going to buy using their eminent domain power) to harvest wheat, which was for her own use, in order to take home to her employee, a baker who she had contracted with to work for more than the statutory maximum number of hours a week, in order to make bread for the National Guardsmen that the governor had put in her house?
I withdraw my objection in shame, and resign from the bar.
But if you get rid of Casey, wouldn’t that just reset things to Roe, the previous precedent? If your aim is to eliminate abortion rights, shouldn’t you go after the case that started it all?
There was actually a recent Canadian Supreme Court case that dealt with a traffic ticket (really language issues, but. . .)
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/04/supreme-court-sides-with-unilingual-traffic-ticket-claim/
And a Washington State Supreme Court case about a traffic ticket.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2009/12/08/984921/man-appeals-traffic-ticket-all.html
Then, there are of course the various traffic stop cases and to what constitutes a search, like Terry or Whren, but I don’t know what case kanicbird is talking about.
Well if you get rid of Roe, then Casey still controls. So sort of both I guess.
I’m counting the number of times each case is mentioned. So far, this one is in the lead. I’m really surprised, because when the decision was first made I could have sworn that most dopers were defending it, saying that circuit and appeals courts have been ruling this way for a long time.
Kelo is going to be popular on this because it fits the view of both the left and the right about the Court. The left thinks the Court exists to benefit big business (and compel poor property owners to sell their granny’s house to the nasty development corporation) while the right thinks the Court exists to espand the power of big government over the individual (and permit the government to compel a poor property owner to sell his granny’s house).
Kelo leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I don’t know enough about the area of law to make an informed coment on it.
I’ve counted the number of times a case was mentioned (as of post 59) and so far, the one in the lead is,
Kelo vs City of New London, with 8 Votes. I’m shocked, for reasons mentioned in post 58.
Second place is Roe v. Wade with 5 votes. Again, I’m shocked. Most people here are pro choice.
Third place is a tie between Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company and Citizens United v Federal Election Commission with 4 votes each.
Slaughterhouse and State Farm v. Campbell each have 3 votes.
Morse v. Frederick and Bush v Gore each have 2 votes.
And all the rest have only 1 vote.