Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26-28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President - the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation.The WWII relocation was not "solely and explicitly on the basis of race". It relocated Japanese, German, and Italian nationals until the end of the war. They were mostly non-citizens and anchor babies.
The dissent's reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and - to be clear - "has no place in law under the Constitution." 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
Many of those Japanese were probably more loyal to Japan than to the USA. FDR and Earl Warren presumably figured that they would be a problem if the war reached California.
What if there were a WWIII with the Islamic world against Christendom? What if England and France were crippled by domestic Moslem terrorists?
My guess is that we would see civil wars, with many countries having no choice but to round up the Moslems and put them in concentration camps. If we got to that point, I don't think that anyone would care about Supreme Court opinions. They would do what has to be done.
The Supreme Court dissent concludes:
Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to account when they defy our most sacred legal commitments. Because the Court's decision today has failed in that respect, with profound regret, I dissent.It is a disgrace that we have four justices with this opinion. Really, our most sacred legal commitment is to let Moslem terrorists and sympathizers into the USA? I doubt that any of the Constitution authors or ratifiers would have such an opinion. It is almost impossible to take more than 20 people from those Moslem countries without taking terrorist sympathizers.
The four dissenters are all Democrat appointments. Three are Jewish and one is Puerto Rican. Three are women. They are selling out the USA in order to undermine white Christian males. There is no benefit to travel from the Islamic countries, unless you are scheming to transform the USA by marginalizing white males. White males need to call this for what it is.
This is not a case about religious beliefs. Nobody cares about the theological beliefs of the Moslems. We care about their anti-American and pro-terrorist beliefs that come coupled with those religious beliefs.