We’re going to have to agree to disagree. The national security rationale may appear flimsy, but it’s not up to the SCOTUS to agree or disagree on appropriate national security rationale for something like foreign entry. The constitution is very clear that it falls within the discretion of the president (any…

If Mitt Romney had won in 2012, there’s a pretty good chance he would be president right now. I’m willing to bet Romney’s priorities wouldn’t be a trade war with Canada or building a wall. Trump barely even superficially resembles an actual Republican (I’m not talking about ridiculous caricatures). 

You were willing to “bet money” about Roberts agreeing with Korematsu. Just google “korematsu overturned” and read all the headlines. Are all these SCOTUS beat journalists wrong?

Statements made in the actual ruling were what displayed discrimination in that case.

Just so everyone is aware, Mr. Collins view on the SCOTUS ruling is held by a lot of conservatives.

Don’t get too excited, because apparently this ruling is being understood as actually overturning Korematsu.

I’m not glossing over anything, but there is zero justification for blanket internment of an entire ethnic group, regardless of legal status (or generational separation from Japan). I don’t care who anyone is at war with. That is entirely different from the “lite” ban. Again, I don’t agree with the policy at all, but…

There’s some confusion about if it actually is prevailing law. The DOJ made a statement in 2011 saying that evidence was suppressed or improperly presented by the DOJ in 1944, so the evidence that the ruling is based on is invalid. 

Korematsu isn’t legitimized here because this ruling has nothing to do with legal residents. That is a huge difference that you’re just sort of glossing over. Restricting travel into the country of foreign nationals is a much more limited action, and doesn’t violate all kinds of basic rights like Korematsu did. You…

Forcible relocation and internment of US citizens and legal residents is very different than barring entry of foreign nationals from a specific country. 

Technically yes, but that’s why he argues that it shouldn’t be used as a basis for a decision (the dissenting argument is based on Korematsu). It was a bad ruling as acknowledged by everybody. So we really shouldn’t be using it to decide anything.  

Since the ruling only upholds the “lite” travel ban, it still allows for a waiver process. It also removes any group exemptions, like that originally given to Syrian Christians.

This is why arguing anything based on Korematsu is problematic. It is universal acknowledged to be a bad ruling. So in referencing it (in legal terms) it’s hard to see exactly what argument is being made. 

The huge difference in this and Korematsu is that it pertains to foreign nationals, not legal residents and US citizens. Plus arguing anything on the basis of Korematsu is confusing because it’s never been officially overturned, but everyone acknowledges it was wrong.

Roberts goes into detail about why it differs from Korematsu:

It only upholds the “lite” travel ban, meaning only specific countries can be banned (no Syrian Christian exemptions) and there has to be a waiver process. The SCOTUS rarely makes rulings trying to judge intentions. Their job is to decide if this is legal under executive authority. Because it only pertains to foreign…

Perfect score on both. First try.

Just curious, but why cite KTBS? They’re a local ABC affiliate out of Shreveport, LA. Nowhere close to Denver.

I don’t know about the specific research details, but anecdotally I find it much more comfortable to go back and forth. And no, I’m not a standing desk fanatic. I just work in a lab with counter height benches and tall chairs.

This reads like the author doesn’t understand how standing desks work. The term “standing desk” almost always refers to an adjustable desk that allows you to sit or stand. If you have to stand all the time, it’s called a counter.