Centerfield

I just caught the announcement on CNBC and did a fist-pumping "YEAH!" My "don't discuss politics with ME" husband went "What? What?" LOL

Go Blue Dogs!

Can we stop the 'nutroots' stuff. Let it go the way of 'femi-nazi' and 'Bush-hater'.

Why do some insist on using pseudo-epthets?

Hasting and Murtha v Hoyer and Harman? Are those the choices? We shall see. Good for Hoyer and the Democrats. It's not two for two yet.

And there is a struggle on the Right Side.

Ford Jr is thinking 2008. Maybe someone's running mate? Clinton Ford? McCain Ford. LOL The race is on and I wonder if centrists will prevail at all on the Right. Kosworld did not deliver, the middle did, so I won't call it a DNC betrayal when there are few favors owed.

And we haven't seen anything yet.

Can we stop the 'nutroots' stuff...Why do some insist on using pseudo-epithets?

Um, do you want the serious answer or the flippant one?

Can we stop the 'nutroots' stuff.

I can't, and I won't.

OK, but if you're going to use "nutroots", then I'm going to say "Reichwing". As Billy Jean (no relation) used to say: "Fair is fair."

Can we stop the 'nutroots' stuff. Let it go the way of 'femi-nazi' and 'Bush-hater'.

Why do some insist on using pseudo-epthets?

CDM,

Because, without resorting to hackneyed phrases like "nutroots", "hate Bush crowd", "cut-and-run", and "cut and jog", supporters of the war would have to engage in a real debate with those who are critical of Bush's foreign policy.

The "nutroots" might be hopelessly partisan, but at least they've been fairly consistent in their opposition to the war, unlike opportunistic Democrats who initially supported the war and then, predictably, started criticizing Bush as soon as the war turned sour. The left criticized Bush and pro-war Republicans. Isn't it only fair that they criticize pro-war Democrats as well?

Also, I find it fascinating how people on this blog (and over at Bull Moose) heap praise upon Henry "Scoop" Jackson. As a United States Senator, Mr. Jackson adamantly supported the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, adamantly supported the Vietnam War, was a major proponent of pork-barrel-spending (so long as it went to his state), and was a also a major proponent of the military-industrial-complex (they didn't call him the "Senator from Boeing" for nothing).

Scoop Jackson was a predecessor of today's neoconservative movement. Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, and Douglas Feith were all former Democratic Aides to Senator Jackson and continue to push his pro-war philosophies today. He continually criticized President Eisenhower for being "weak" on defense since Eisenhower opposed allocating even more money to the defense industry than was already being allocated (very similar to the way in which today's neoconservatives today lash out against anyone who voted against the pork doled out to the defense industry in the 90's).

OK, but if you're going to use "nutroots", then I'm going to say "Reichwing". As Billy Jean (no relation) used to say: "Fair is fair."

That's not fair at all, Jean! "Nutroots" can be used generically for both extremes, and "Reichwing" isn't ambidextrous like "nutroots" is. Besides, it's Godwinian. :-)

Damn! I'll just have to go with my second choice; "The Poopy Head Wing." ;-)

I may be clueless, but I thought that "nutroots" is generally used when referring to the Kos crowd and "wingnuts" is generally used when referring to the Powerline crowd.

I knew there would be the usual GOP hand wringing over Murtha. What's more amusing is the surrogates liek FOX trying to dredge up ABSCAM out of which he wasn't charged with anything. The swiftboating from the RIGHT of Murtha continues it's shameless drumbeat.

BTW inre the juvenile baiting.
I'll take "America's White-Wing" or AWW.......

My experience is that nutroots indeed has been used primarily to refer to the Kos crowwd, but I think it makes sense to use it generically.

I have already made plans to start asking folks "do you mean the left's nutroots or the right's nutroots."

I agree that it's a trollish/flamey way to talk, but I find all that "so war supporters can avoid a serious discussion" stuff quite laughable.

"Reichwing..."

I snickerd when I read that... Some of you need to lighten up, just a tad. And I'm still going to continue to use the word, because (1) I find it hilarious and (2)I think many in the blogging movement on both the LEFT and the RIGHT are, well, nuts.

Nic,

As someone who lives and works in Scoop Jackson's old Congressional district, I would have to say that is the most one sided, bassackwards, characterization of the man I have ever heard. If you lined up every Democratic politician of that era you wouldn't find many that weren't adamantly to the Japanese prison camps or opposed to pork barrel spending except that which benefited their own state.

I don't think DLC New Democrats look at Scoop as a hero based on every stance he every took, but rather that he generally felt the best position for the country was one of progressive social responsibility, environmental protection, fiscal conservatism, and a tough foreign policy. Those positions, BTW, were taken by the only Democrat to win the White House in the last thirty years.

Isn't it only fair that they criticize pro-war Democrats as well?

That is NOT what they have done... They have picked certain Democrats as targets while ignoring others, like, say John Kerry and other Members of Congress who voted FOR the war. In the Connecticut senate race they opposed the incumbent and heaped praise on those who supported his opponent, although they had taken the exact same position as Joe. To claim that the nutroots *gasp* are any more consistent or pure than any other political interest is just plain ridiculous.

Brian,

I fail to see how the use of the word "troll" is any more or less "trollish/flamey" than the use of the word "nutroot" or "wingnut." Just a thought.

I fail to see how the use of the word "troll" is any more or less "trollish/flamey" than the use of the word "nutroot" or "wingnut." Just a thought.

I think agree, but I'm not sure what you are objecting to in what I've said. In blogland a troll is someone who uses inflammatory language, words that inflame the conversation emotionally. The usual connotation is that this action is intentional, but my experience is that you can, in essence, be a troll without intending to.

Are you saying that I'm being a troll by saying that the use of the word nutroot is trollish/flamey? I guess I'd agree in the sense that its perhaps trollish to call someone a troll or say they are acting trollish. Something of a platform problem there.

But my point remains. If you use a word like nutroot, you might get a vituperative, angry, dismissive, response suggesting that you are showing your true colors yadayadayada. So I think it's objectively true that if you DON'T want that, you ought to consider avoiding the term.

That said, I'm not at all perturbed by anyone who nevertheless adopts an "I don't care, I like it" attitude. I'm simply suggesting what the results may be. Use "nutroots" and you create the opportunity for a discussion to be sidetracked on the issue of "why are you n@me-calling."

Of course, it's partly an audience issue, one that comes up when an unfamiliar does a drive-by. I like to say things like "the further left" because it decreases the chances that my point will be dismissed by someone certain I'm reichwing

I use "wingnut" generically as well. But I CAN think of a few terms that really don't genericize well, and I try not to use them. Moonbat is lefties. Asshat is righties. "Poopy Head Wing" can also be used generically--it's an accurate descript of what the speaker's thinking on either side! My current favorite generic is "fugnutty."

And it seems to me that centrists can use whatever generic terms they like, they just have to remember to use a pointer. When a winger uses one you always know which side he's talking about. From the middle you gotta be more specific!

"Troll" is ambiguous.

What's more amusing is the surrogates liek FOX trying to dredge up ABSCAM out of which he wasn't charged with anything.

It's called "unindicted co-conspirator," Marcus. I've seen the ABSCAM tapes, and he truly earned the title, missing indictment by a hair by not picking up the cash after spending half an hour explaining to the undercover agent how to bribe him properly, in the accepted fashion. I don't think that makes him unique in DC. He's got lots of company on both sides of the aisle. But it's not "Swiftboating" to notice that an angel, he ain't.

The only thing more impressive than his tap dance was his continual use of obscenity and scatology in the conversation with the undercover. Not much range, but plenty of quantity and volume.

I think agree, but I'm not sure what you are objecting to in what I've said.

My point wasn't to object, but to point out how silly this conversation is. Troll, nutroot, wingnut, who cares? No, I don't think you are a troll.

If you use a word like nutroot, you might get a vituperative, angry, dismissive, response suggesting that you are showing your true colors yadayadayada...

That's fair. Maybe deep down I secretly want the "vituperative, angry, dismissive" responses and I just am not aware of it.

Tully,

Good points, but I assumed that when I wrote the word "nutroot" and "Kos" in the same post, people would figure out what I meant.

ANY way....back on topic, Pelosi may well be simply fulfilling a promise to endorse Murtha, getting the promised favor out of the way and off the books as early in the process as possible. She reportedly didn't push too hard for him, offering public support but not doing much back-scene lobbying. On the other side of the Hill, Harry Reid VERY publicly promised Jon Tester a seat on Appropriations if he beat Burns, and then reneged when Tester won. Moral: Reid can't be trusted. His word is no good. He'll screw his own people.

I'd take a losing attempt to live up to one's word over an outright blowoff like Reid's, any day. IMHO, Pelosi's real test will be Alcee Hastings for Intel.

Like I said Tully, Harman or Hastings. That will be a sign. I think Pelosi wanted Murtha and in any case, it was a slap to her power. Good. She doesn’t like Harman. And her candidates are clearly pay back to the antiwar wing. Boy, do they seem to be getting their surprise. So what where else will they go, Republican?

I don't really like Reid that much. Not too many novel ideas originate from his mind. Doesn't he have some legal issues following him? And Hastings......same problems but not too many Blacks being given spots.

I don't use nutroots often and was asked not to use Repugs when I first posted here, or Demwits, not that these labels don’t often apply.

I find it funny that some call Borat anti-Semitic.

Harman or Hastings? If she moves smart, it's the end run. Reyes.

As someone who lives and works in Scoop Jackson's old Congressional district, I would have to say that is the most one sided, bassackwards, characterization of the man I have ever heard. If you lined up every Democratic politician of that era you wouldn't find many that weren't adamantly to the Japanese prison camps or opposed to pork barrel spending except that which benefited their own state.

Matthew,

Let me see if I have your argument right. Other Democrats did it too, so that makes it alright.

Facts are facts, Matthew.

1) Jackson DID support the internment of Japanese-Americans living on the west coast during WWII. Yes, there was widespread support for this policy (among both Democrats and Republicans) during the war, but that doesn't make it right.

You make it sound as if I'm unfairly singling out Mr. Jackson for this dark chapter in our nation's history. But there's a reason why so many historians and Japanese-Americans single out Mr. Jackson, and it's because Scoop and his fellow Senator from Washington, Warren Magnuson, were among the most zealous supporters of Japanese-American internment. Senator Jackson campaigned not only for the relocation of Japanese-Americans but also a fervent advocate of not allowing these Japanese-Americans to return to the west coast.

2) Mr. Jackson WAS a major proponent of pork-barrel-spending. He was well known for bringing taxpayer dollars back to his district, and like many Democrats at the time, he was an avid supporter of big government and the welfare state.

3) As for being a supporter of the military-industrial-complex, it would be difficult to find a politician who would be more deserving of such a title. You may remember that it was President Eisenhower who famously warned against the dangers of the military-industrial-complex in his 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation. During the 1950's President Eisenhower had worked to curtail that vast amounts of tax payer dollars that were being doled out to defense contractors, and for this, Mr. Jackson derided Eisenhower as being "weak" on defense (if only I had a dime every time I heard that argument trotted out).

Meanwhile, Mr. Jackson saw to it that huge sums of taxpayer dollars were sent to the Boeing Corporation, which just happened to be headquartered in his Washington district (Boeing has since moved its headquarters to Chicago).

4) Mr. Jackson DID fervently support the Vietnam War, even going to far as to criticize those of his party who argued that the war was a mistake and that we should promptly leave.

Supporters of the Vietnam War will argue that Mr. Jackson showed courage in defying his party by arguing that we should stay the course in Vietnam. But I seem to remember another Democratic Senator who had the courage to stand up against his own party. The man was Eugene McCarthy. He criticized the President Johnson and the war even before the war grew to be unpopular. McCarthy argued for change in 1968. Four years later, Jackson continued to support the status quo.

Inevitably, virtually all praise I've heard in regards to Scoop Jackson comes from pro-war Democrats like Marshal Wittman (the Moose) and from pro-war Republicans who want to pretend that virtually everyone speaking out against the war belongs to the far left.

I don't see why we should praise this man, who was a tireless defender of both the welfare state and the warfare state.

Okay, I've not once--but twice--claimed that Senator Jackson supported the interment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.

This claim would never stand up in a court of law given that Mr. Jackson didn't even become a member of the U.S. Senate until 1953. During WWII, he was, however, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. My bad.

The rest of my post still stands.

Scoop enlisted in WW2 while representing his state. He volunteered to defend this nation. He visited the concentration camps right after the war and given the context of the times, did defend minorities, despite Nic’s remarks about the Japanese. Certain observations seem to float out of some subjective detachment from historical and even biological realities. Prigogine (statistical) versus Plato (ideal – and Socrates did drink the hemlock for the primacy of the state).

Scoop fought Joe McCarty and opposed normal trade relations with countries denying free immigration of its people, particularly the USSR. He was a Democratic realist who understood that only with a big stick could we ever end the cold war. I bet some here think the USSR collapsed on its own. He did support what he felt was vital military industry, but could hardly be blamed for Perle's permutations ( see Iraq strategy interview just before the invasion). Indict the father for the transgressions of his off-spring? Scoop is remembered as more of a centrist and Internationalist, supporting strong enforcement of international law, environmental protection and the success of Liberal Democracy.

No doubt, there was plenty of Pork and partisanship, but the lack of historical context (see WW2, Korean War, and Cold War etc.) often cast him as the father of neo-conservatism. Being in favor of a strong American international presence and promoting Democracy abroad (defending human rights) hardly makes one a neocon in the derogatory way that term is used today. Scoop was more of a Liberal centrist who realized the world is still far from benign behavior. In light of clear and dangerous threats, Liberal Democracy must be prepared for the worst.

While Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the MIC, he approved the Shah's ascendancy rather than seeing the USSR pumping Iranian crude. It is easy to look back and ignore context. It is rather silly to think that future Liberal utopias are not built on the back of pragmatism and strength. Scoop rightly saw our major hurdles to be environmental degradation, poverty, national security and energy. Seems less Perle to me than Lieberman or Biden. Perhaps centrist’s influence IS the message of this last election and Scoop will be remembered as one of its modern messengers, despite a wart or two.

Nic,
It really doesn't matter. Given your remarks on the DRAFT thread, even if a jury and judge found your remarks wrong, it doesn't mean such judgment is Constitutional. Scoop had to return from war when FDR ordered all congressional members to return.

RE: Jackson's support for Japanese-American internment--Exactly ONE elected official in America publicly protested the internment of the Japanese-Americans at the time. That was the governor of Colorado. He failed of re-election, and his political career was over. Wonder why? In any case, there's a statue of him in Denver's Sakura Square now, placed there by JA's who were grateful for his anti-racist speech urging the citizens of Colorado to accept the displaced JA's without prejudice.

Before tarring Jackson with that brush, let's be sure and mention that not only was he not alone, he was in a VERY big crowd. He protested the return of the JA's to Washington state when they were released before the war was over. Many people don't realize that the government began clearing JA citizens to return to their states in January 1944, and the internments ended in January 1945. The camps stayed open for almost another year for those who could not leave immediately.

As wrong as the US JA internment was, at least for the 2/3's of JA's who were citizens, the Canadian internments were much much worse. Our neighbors to the north would prefer to forget that.

Jackson was a liberal hawk, liberal as in old-time pork-gobbling. Rare breed nowadays, at least the hawk bit, not rare at all back then. And the pork bit is universal.

I assume Liberal Hawks are considered part of the historical "centrists" grouping, yes?

And where would one put Murtha, Biden, Lieberman?

How many Liberal Hawks are left, or have they become extinct?

Nic,
It really doesn't matter. Given your remarks on the DRAFT thread, even if a jury and judge found your remarks wrong, it doesn't mean such judgment is Constitutional.

Maxtrue,

Since you're the one who brought the DRAFT thread up, I'll go ahead and point out that the internment of Japanese-Americans was yet ANOTHER example of where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled something Constitution that wasn't Constitutional. In the case of Japanese Internment, Congress didn't even bother passing a law--FDR simply passed an executive order, and the Supreme Court rubber stamped this policy.

In the 1944 Korematsu v. United States U.S. Supreme Court case, the court ruled by a 6-3 decision that the federal government was justified in ordering the relocation and internment of Japanese-American citizens. Not once does the majority opinion cite any portion of the Constitution to justify its reasoning. Although Japanese-Americans received an apology and partial compensation for their losses, the Korematsu v. United States ruling was never overturned.

Maxtrue, by your logic, forced relocation and internment during times of war is Constitutional just because the 1944 U.S. Supreme Court said it was, even in spite of the fact that the Constitution grants no such power to the federal government and forbids the government from depriving any citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process.

Do you still insist that anything the U.S. Supreme Court deems Constitutional becomes Constitutional, no matter how unfounded its argument is?

Matthew,

Perhaps as a way to distinguish Scoop Jackson from other Democrats, you described Mr. Jackson's politics as being characterized by "fiscal conservatism." But this seems unfounded. Mr. Jackson was very much a New Deal Democrat and no more fiscally conservative than the typical Democrat of his time. In fact, at least one resource that I came across described Mr. Jackson thusly:

Jackson returned to Everett and worked for the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) while waiting for his bar exam results. His relief work made him an enthusiastic supporter of the New Deal policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945) and a lifelong believer in the ability of government to improve people's lives.

He was also an enthusiastic supporter of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and as I've already pointed out, he was big on pork-barrel spending. A fiscal conservative he was not.

Mr. Jackson has been lauded on this blog and by Marshal Wittman as a Centrist, but I would argue that his record can best be described as a big government neoconservative:

Fiscally, he was progressive.

Socially, he was moderate to conservative. On one hand, he was a strong supporter of the civil rights movement; however, prior to his time in congress, he made a name for himself as a prohibition era prosecutor who crusaded against bootlegging, gambling, and pinball machines, and during his 1976 presidential campaign, he ran on a socially conservative platform, "emphasizing law and order and his opposition to busing and abortion."

And on foreign policy he about as hawkish as one could get. He was admantly pro-war and likened detente to appeasement. He advocated for increased spending on the defense industry and denounced fellow politicians (including President Eisenhower) as being "weak" on defense if they didn't agree to the pro-defense industry spending that he wanted.

In other words, Scoop Jackson was a typical "guns & butter" Democrat who agitated for bigger government both at home and abroad.

Finally, leave it to Maxtrue to connect Scoop Jackson with the results of last week's elections:

Perhaps centrist’s influence IS the message of this last election and Scoop will be remembered as one of its modern messengers, despite a wart or two.

Maxtrue, perhaps you didn't get the message, but your pro-war policies were rebuked by the voters in last week's elections. Certainly ethical scandals in Congress (which the Democrats politicized to no end) also played a role, but exit polls indicated that voters were fed up with the war. How you could interpret last week's elections as having anything to do with the "message" of Scoop Jackson is beyond me.

Nic,
Go visit Kos and see what they are saying. You can label me pro-war and I can label you a jerk. I think we might want to rise above childishness here. Next you’ll be telling me pre-emption/prevention and even force is both immoral AND unconstitutional. Perhaps in your world.

The election was hardly an indictment of the use of force. Where do you get this stuff? I repeat, last week's election was not an indictment of military force. Corruption was key and the management of the war in Iraq followed. The crucial centrist vote leaned towards the Democrats because corruption and bad military management irritated them the most. Did you get that? Now the Democratic leadership wants to get that monkey of weakness it has been labeled with off its back. And world events will give them plenty of chances.

You doesn't like the term nutoots but you dish out neocon and pro-war whenever you can. So balanced of you. Personally, I find pro-war more offensive than nutroots. But you are free to say whatever.

Yes, Scoop equals Perle and Iraq equals ending the Cold War. You left out Scoop's disgust at Joe McCarthy. In fact it seems you filter just about everything through your colored glasses. How can I see last weeks election as a "centrist" victory AND that Scoop was a Democratic centrist? "The truth is out there". It's those damn glasses you're wearing.

Oh, and in regards to your DRAFT THREAD, let me make my position even clearer to you. YOU claimed that the Draft was immoral and UNCONSTITUIONAL. I repeat, you claimed that the political philosophies that our notion of Liberal Democracy came from, our Judeo-Christian morality, our political history and our Constitution is mutually exclusive to the idea of a draft. You did not prove that on the Draft thread, nor do you prove that on this thread. I was reacting to your unfounded claim. You are perfectly entitled to your own moral considerations about the draft.

My response was not intended to prove the opposite of your claim. It merely showed yet another paradigm (the biological one) that is consistent with the idea of draft under the conditions Bobby CLEARLY stated.

Lastly, your equivalency between "Slavery" or "involuntary servitude" (such as how Blacks were treated in this country) and the draft is an erroneous given. Bobby can state military codes to you and trying to equate the slavery you imply with any obligation our elected officials deem critical for our survival is another example of intellectual over-reach. I suppose the biological argument was too hard to grasp despite your (assumed) support of teaching evolutionary theory in public schools (or is that some kind of slavery too?).

P.S. If you haven’t noticed; there is a notion that goes back a long way which understands the difference between times of peace and times of war. Sometimes during war, Liberal Democracy acts in ways which during peacetime appear a bit Spartan. I don’t approve of every action Lincoln or his Congress took, but I can’t seem to find an American today that disapproved of his leadership or his victory. I wonder if historical context means much to you.

Nic,

(Without the typos so there is no misunderstanding)

Go visit Kos and see what they are saying. You can label me pro-war and I can label you a jerk. I think we might want to rise above childishness here. Next you’ll be telling me pre-emption/prevention and even force are both immoral AND unconstitutional. Perhaps in your world.

The election was hardly an indictment of the use of force. Where do you get this stuff? I repeat, last week's election was not an indictment of military force. Corruption was key and the management of the war in Iraq followed. The crucial centrist vote leaned towards the Democrats because corruption and bad military management irritated them the most. Did you get that? Now the Democratic leadership wants to get that monkey of weakness they has been labeled with off their back. And world events will give them plenty of chances.

You doesn't like the term "nutoots" but you dish out "neocon" and "pro-war" whenever you can. So balanced of you. Personally, I find pro-war more offensive than nutroots. But you are free to say whatever.

Yes, Scoop equals Perle and Iraq equals ending the Cold War. You left out Scoop's disgust at Joe McCarthy. In fact, it seems you filter just about everything through your colored glasses. How can I see last weeks election as a "centrist" victory AND that Scoop was a Democratic centrist? "The truth is out there". It's those damn glasses you're wearing.

Oh, and in regards to your DRAFT THREAD, let me make my position even clearer to you. YOU claimed that the Draft was immoral and UNCONSTITUIONAL. I repeat, you claimed that the political philosophies that our notion of Liberal Democracy came from, our Judeo-Christian morality, our political history and our Constitution are mutually exclusive to the idea of a draft. You did not prove that on the Draft thread, nor do you prove that on this thread. I was reacting to your unfounded claims. You are perfectly entitled to your own moral considerations about the draft.

My response was not intended to prove the opposite of your claim. It merely showed yet another paradigm (the biological one) that is consistent with the idea of draft under the conditions Bobby CLEARLY stated.

Lastly, your equivalency between "Slavery" or "involuntary servitude" (such as how Blacks were treated in this country) and the draft is an erroneous given. Bobby can state military codes to you and trying to equate the "slavery" you imply with any obligation our elected officials deem critical for our survival is another example of intellectual over-reach. I suppose the biological argument was too hard to grasp despite your (assumed) support of teaching evolutionary theory in public schools (or is that some kind of slavery too?).

P.S. If you haven’t noticed; there is a notion that goes back a long way which understands the difference between times of peace and times of war. Sometimes during war, Liberal Democracy acts in ways which during peacetime appear a bit Spartan. I don’t approve of every action Lincoln or his Congress took, but I can’t seem to find an American today that disapproved of his leadership or his victory. I wonder if historical context means much to you.

Jackson a guns & butter Dem? True enough. It was a different Democratic Party back then. He had lots of company. Being a civil rights liberal in the 1950's certainly put him in the minority of the party.

In the 1944 Korematsu v. United States U.S. Supreme Court case, the court ruled by a 6-3 decision that the federal government was justified in ordering the relocation and internment of Japanese-American citizens. Not once does the majority opinion cite any portion of the Constitution to justify its reasoning. Although Japanese-Americans received an apology and partial compensation for their losses, the Korematsu v. United States ruling was never overturned.

Maxtrue, by your logic, forced relocation and internment during times of war is Constitutional just because the 1944 U.S. Supreme Court said it was, even in spite of the fact that the Constitution grants no such power to the federal government and forbids the government from depriving any citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process.

By definition the Supreme Court can say that (see US Const Art III) but that question was not addressed in the 1944 decision because it had already been previously decided. SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution grants specific powers to the government in time of war, and that the specific usage of war powers was not Constitutionally prohibited. That "due power of law" can be exercised legislatively and adminstratively in many ways, when the Constitution and specific legislation of Congress grant war powers to the executive. You're arguing an entirely irrelevant point there. The Korematsu decision explicitly addressed the Constitutional questions through the incorporation of the previous Hirabayashi decision of 1943. There was no need for them to re-visit the previous ruling of Hirabayashi in Korematsu, and they said so.

Personal opinion: That the govenment was legally, Constitutionally, and even perhaps pragmatically justified in the internment of the coastal JA's in WW2 does not excuse the government from paying them damages and recompense for so doing. Happens all the time in other contexts, such as property condemnations for public use. And do please note that not all JA's were excluded and interned--the orders were location-specific. Those living outside the military exclusion zones were not subject to the orders.

Now, if I only had you as a professor in College........

I would have gone from keeping it real to making it cogent....