Consequential Presidents

[Rockfish1]

Historians like to rate Presidents on their greatness, but it’s also useful to think of how consequential they were. By this I mean, for good or ill, how much did it matter that they occupied the Oval Office instead of someone else? Did their decisions produce consequential outcomes, whether good or bad? Here is my chronological list of consequential Presidents.

(1) George Washington – no explanation necessary.

(2) Thomas Jefferson – Jefferson won his fame mostly before becoming President, but the Louisiana Purchase was huge.

(3) James K. Polk – Polk is virtually never mentioned, but he took Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California from Mexico, mostly as a result of the controversial Mexican-American War, which we ginned up because we wanted to take territory. This constituted more than half of what had previously been Mexico.

(4) Abraham Lincoln – No explanation necessary.

(5) Theodore Roosevelt – No explanation necessary.

(6) Franklin Roosevelt – No explanation necessary.

(7) Lyndon Johnson – the Great Society; the Vietnam War.

(8) Richard Nixon – the Vietnam War; the opening to China; Watergate.

(9) Ronald Reagan – the Reagan Revolution.

(10) Barack Obama – Obamacare.
​

Thoughts?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Way too early. We just do not have any real data on the lasting impacts of ACA. I notice LBJ not on the list, but Medicare may still prove bigger than ACA.

 

[Rockfish1]

Way too early. We just do not have any real data on the lasting impacts of ACA. I notice LBJ not on the list, but Medicare may still prove bigger than ACA.

I'm doing something I seldom do: I'm making a prediction. Medicare is huge, and even if it proves bigger than Obamacare per se, I think that Obamacare has established the idea that it's the government's job to ensure that everyone has health care. Arguments about how it should do so will continue, but I think we've just witnessed (at least the beginning of the) end of the argument about whether government should do so. That's a big deal.

In this context it's worth revisiting Bill Kristol's case against Hillarycare:

Passage of the Clinton health care plan, in any form, would guarantee and likely make permanent an unprecedented federal intrusion into and disruption of the American economy--and the establishment of the largest federal entitlement program since Social Security. Its success would signal a rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy at the very moment we have begun rolling back that idea in other areas. And, not least, it would destroy the present breadth and quality of the American health care system, still the world's finest. On grounds of national policy alone, the plan should not be amended; it should be erased.

But the Clinton proposal is also a serious political threat to the Republican Party. Republicans must therefore clearly understand the political strategy implicit in the Clinton plan--and then adopt an aggressive and uncompromising counterstrategy designed to delegitimize the proposal and defeat its partisan purpose.

"Health care will prove to be an enormously healthy project for Clinton... and for the Democratic Party." So predicts Stanley Greenberg, the president's strategist and pollster. If a Clinton health care plan succeeds without principled Republican opposition, Mr. Greenberg will be right. Because the initiative's inevitably destructive effect on American medical services will not be practically apparent for several years--no Carter-like gas lines, in other words--its passage in the short run will do nothing to hurt (and everything to help) Democratic electoral prospects in 1996. But the long-term political effects of a successful Clinton health care bill will be even worse--much worse. It will relegitimize middle-class dependence for "security" on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.
​

This is the potentially existential argument that Republicans just lost. They knew the stakes. That's why they pulled out all the stops and fought so bitterly.

Having said so, you've commented on only one of my ten consequential Presidents. Any other thoughts?

 

[tigerchump]

Historians like to rate Presidents on their greatness, but it’s also useful to think of how consequential they were. By this I mean, for good or ill, how much did it matter that they occupied the Oval Office instead of someone else? Did their decisions produce consequential outcomes, whether good or bad? Here is my chronological list of consequential Presidents.

(1) George Washington – no explanation necessary.

(2) Thomas Jefferson – Jefferson won his fame mostly before becoming President, but the Louisiana Purchase was huge.

(3) James K. Polk – Polk is virtually never mentioned, but he took Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California from Mexico, mostly as a result of the controversial Mexican-American War, which we ginned up because we wanted to take territory. This constituted more than half of what had previously been Mexico.

(4) Abraham Lincoln – No explanation necessary.

(5) Theodore Roosevelt – No explanation necessary.

(6) Franklin Roosevelt – No explanation necessary.

(7) Lyndon Johnson – the Great Society; the Vietnam War.

(8) Richard Nixon – the Vietnam War; the opening to China; Watergate.

(9) Ronald Reagan – the Reagan Revolution.

(10) Barack Obama – Obamacare.
​

Thoughts?

One thing that is strange about how history is taught is that the peacekeeping Presidents are often overlooked.John Adams kept America out of a war with France.and Jimmy Carter got little credit for the Camp David peace accords.Woodrow Wilson kept the US out of WW one as long as he could,and failed to get the United States into the League of Nations ,despite his best efforts.

 

[Buzz123a]

Historians like to rate Presidents on their greatness, but it’s also useful to think of how consequential they were. By this I mean, for good or ill, how much did it matter that they occupied the Oval Office instead of someone else? Did their decisions produce consequential outcomes, whether good or bad? Here is my chronological list of consequential Presidents.

(1) George Washington – no explanation necessary.

(2) Thomas Jefferson – Jefferson won his fame mostly before becoming President, but the Louisiana Purchase was huge.

(3) James K. Polk – Polk is virtually never mentioned, but he took Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California from Mexico, mostly as a result of the controversial Mexican-American War, which we ginned up because we wanted to take territory. This constituted more than half of what had previously been Mexico.

(4) Abraham Lincoln – No explanation necessary.

(5) Theodore Roosevelt – No explanation necessary.

(6) Franklin Roosevelt – No explanation necessary.

(7) Lyndon Johnson – the Great Society; the Vietnam War.

(8) Richard Nixon – the Vietnam War; the opening to China; Watergate.

(9) Ronald Reagan – the Reagan Revolution.

(10) Barack Obama – Obamacare.
​

Thoughts?

I think you've got FDR too low; given the New Deal and his leadership in WWII I'd rank him ahead of everyone but Washington and Lincoln. And I'd put Shrub pretty high on the list; the damage he did was pretty consequential. I think Obama will eventually rate higher than 10th, on the strength of ACA, dealing with the Great Recession, and being at the forefront of one of our cyclical swings in political orientation.

 

[davegolf]

I follow your post but disagree with number 8. Nixon although President during the last few years of Vietnam I give more consequence to Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower who committed significant American resources to counter the Communist-led Viet Minh in its struggle against France following the Second World War, it was Kennedy who had deepened and expanded that commitment, increasing the number of U.S. military advisers in and Johnson who finally escalated the conflict in many regards..

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Historians like to rate Presidents on their greatness, but it’s also useful to think of how consequential they were. By this I mean, for good or ill, how much did it matter that they occupied the Oval Office instead of someone else? Did their decisions produce consequential outcomes, whether good or bad? Here is my chronological list of consequential Presidents.

(1) George Washington – no explanation necessary.

(2) Thomas Jefferson – Jefferson won his fame mostly before becoming President, but the Louisiana Purchase was huge.

(3) James K. Polk – Polk is virtually never mentioned, but he took Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California from Mexico, mostly as a result of the controversial Mexican-American War, which we ginned up because we wanted to take territory. This constituted more than half of what had previously been Mexico.

(4) Abraham Lincoln – No explanation necessary.

(5) Theodore Roosevelt – No explanation necessary.

(6) Franklin Roosevelt – No explanation necessary.

(7) Lyndon Johnson – the Great Society; the Vietnam War.

(8) Richard Nixon – the Vietnam War; the opening to China; Watergate.

(9) Ronald Reagan – the Reagan Revolution.

(10) Barack Obama – Obamacare.
​

Thoughts?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Thoughts

Washington and Lincoln are 1 and 2 or maybe 2 and 1.

FDR; 3, mostly for EO 9066, the single most despicable act of any president at any time. Also laid the foundation for the cold war and the iron curtain

LBJ; 4. How could you overlook the Civil Rights Act?

TJ; 5. Louisiana purchase and extending our influence to far reaches of the globe.

Nixon; 5. What you said, but most importantly the EPA. After IRS, probably the single most consequential federal agency ever.

Truman; 6. The bomb; MacArthur. Commander in Chief means Commander in Chief!

Eisenhower; 7. NATO, NASA and putting teeth into Brown vs. the Board of Education.

Taft; 8. Income tax as we know it today.

Obama; 9. Most consequential in real time. He's changed POTUS's job description, and changed US role in the world. Biggie is his immigration policy. Consequences of that will endure in ways the ACA won't.

Reagan 10. Income tax changes and Soviet Union.

Can't comment on Polk. You state an interesting case. But given California and Texas were either independent from Mexico or soon to be, I'm not sure if Polk's policy was a huge factor.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

"chronological list"

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

"chronological list"

His own fault for settling on a list of ten. Ten always looks like a ranking.

 

[Rockfish1]

I think you've got FDR too low; given the New Deal and his leadership in WWII I'd rank him ahead of everyone but Washington and Lincoln. And I'd put Shrub pretty high on the list; the damage he did was pretty consequential. I think Obama will eventually rate higher than 10th, on the strength of ACA, dealing with the Great Recession, and being at the forefront of one of our cyclical swings in political orientation.

I just went through the Presidents chronologically, but I agree with you about FDR. I also agree with you about Bush 43, who was an unfortunately consequential President. I meant to include him.

 

[Rockfish1]

FDR; 3, mostly for EO 9066, the single most despicable act of any president at any time. Also laid the foundation for the cold war and the iron curtain

That EO was undeniably despicable, as was the Korematsu decision that sustained it. But your cramped take on FDR mostly reflects your ability to ignore whatever you don't wish to see.

LBJ; 4. How could you overlook the Civil Rights Act?

Apparently you don't understand what The Great Society references.

Truman; 6. The bomb; MacArthur. Commander in Chief means Commander in Chief!

I'm fond of HST, but I don't think he mattered to The Bomb, which he didn't know about until it was sprung on him and which any other President would have dropped. He absolutely deserves credit for cashiering the egomaniacal lunatic MacArthur.

Taft; 8. Income tax as we know it today.

The 16th amendment was passed during Taft's term, but not as a result of anything the politically inept Taft did. Taft, whom TR came to despise after anointing him, mostly helps to illustrate what a consequential figure TR was.

Can't comment on Polk. You state an interesting case. But given California and Texas were either independent from Mexico or soon to be, I'm not sure if Polk's policy was a huge factor.

Polk ran on expansion and fixated on it in his one term. I left out a couple of the states he led us to steal from Mexico.

 

[Rockfish1]

A subjective assessment of the most consequential Presidents -- not chronologically this time -- incorporating reactions from others:

(1) George Washington – No explanation necessary.

(2) Abraham Lincoln – No explanation necessary.

(3) Franklin Roosevelt – No explanation necessary.

(4) Theodore Roosevelt – No explanation necessary.

(5) Lyndon Johnson – the Great Society; the Vietnam War.

(6) George W. Bush – repeated disasters included 9/11, the bungled war in Afghanistan, the bungled war in Iraq, the lawless War on Terror, Katrina, the financial crash, and the Great Recession.

(7) Richard Nixon – the Vietnam War; the opening to China; Watergate.

(8) Thomas Jefferson – Jefferson won his fame mostly before becoming President, but the Louisiana Purchase was huge.

(9) James K. Polk – Polk is virtually never mentioned, but he took Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and California from Mexico, mostly as a result of the controversial Mexican-American War, which we ginned up because we wanted to take territory. This constituted more than half of what had previously been Mexico.

(10) Barack Obama – Obamacare; extracted us (mostly) from Iraq and Afghanistan; immigration reform; first black President.

(11) Ronald Reagan – the Reagan Revolution.​

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That EO was undeniably despicable, as was the Korematsu decision that sustained it. But your cramped take on FDR mostly reflects your ability to ignore whatever you don't wish to see.

Apparently you don't understand what The Great Society references.

I'm fond of HST, but I don't think he mattered to The Bomb, which he didn't know about until it was sprung on him and which any other President would have dropped. He absolutely deserves credit for cashiering the egomaniacal lunatic MacArthur.

The 16th amendment was passed during Taft's term, but not as a result of anything the politically inept Taft did. Taft, whom TR came to despise after anointing him, mostly helps to illustrate what a consequential figure TR was.

Polk ran on expansion and fixated on it in his one term. I left out a couple of the states he led us to steal from Mexico.

Hey, all I am doing is following your thread starter

You called for a list of the most consequential, not the best or not the most effective.

It's undeniable that one of the most consequential effects of FDR's decisions was the shape of the world for the generation or so after WWII. His fingerprints are all over that. And contrary to your silly assumption, I don't think it was all bad, except he probably didn't have a clear head at the end. Your claim that I am ignoring anything is just CO.HDS BS. BTW, Korematsu was based upon government misconduct within the court proceedings, maybe even perjury in the trial. Claiming that SCOTUS somehow blessed FDR's EO shows that you plainly ignore what you don't wish to see.

We can go back an forth on HST, but I can't think of any more consequential decision of any president in the 20th century than his command to drop it. The fact that anyone would make the same choice is irrelevant. We aren't talking about "WAR" here.

Edit supplement: Taft did more than stand by during ratification of the 16th. He was an active supporter of it.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Hey, all I am doing is following your thread starter

You called for a list of the most consequential, not the best or not the most effective.

It's undeniable that one of the most consequential effects of FDR's decisions was the shape of the world for the generation or so after WWII. His fingerprints are all over that. And contrary to your silly assumption, I don't think it was all bad, except he probably didn't have a clear head at the end. Your claim that I am ignoring anything is just CO.HDS BS. BTW, Korematsu was based upon government misconduct within the court proceedings, maybe even perjury in the trial. Claiming that SCOTUS somehow blessed FDR's EO shows that you plainly ignore what you don't wish to see.

We can go back an forth on HST, but I can't think of any more consequential decision of any president in the 20th century than his command to drop it. The fact that anyone would make the same choice is irrelevant. We aren't talking about "WAR" here.

Edit supplement: Taft did more than stand by during ratification of the 16th. He was an active supporter of it.

I will argue for HST. He was a racist, but ordered the military integrated. I believe that was the beginning of the civil rights movement. He did that over the objections of the military. In addition, the Korean War.

 

[Rockfish1]

It's undeniable that one of the most consequential effects of FDR's decisions was the shape of the world for the generation or so after WWII. His fingerprints are all ove that.

That's true, but of course he died before WWII ended. The ultimate decider was the estimable HST, whom, as I said, I regard fondly. But if you read the history, the decision to drop the bomb was widely regarded at the time as a no-brainer. President Anybody would have dropped that bomb. But it took stones to fire MacArthur.

And contrary to your silly assumption, I don't think it was all bad, except he probably didn't have a clear head at the end. Your claim that I am ignoring anything is just CO.HDS BS.

Here's what you wrote about FDR:

FDR; 3, mostly for EO 9066, the single most despicable act of any president at any time. Also laid the foundation for the cold war and the iron curtain
​

You harp on the same point every time FDR comes up. You're right that it was a despicable act, but your persistent focus on it is telling. It's for good and abundant reasons that virtually every historian puts FDR in the top three. You routinely ignore all of that, as you did again here.

BTW, Korematsu was based upon government misconduct within the court proceedings, maybe even perjury in the trial. Claiming that SCOTUS somehow blessed FDR's EO shows that you plainly ignore what you don't wish to see.

I'm routinely astounded by your blinkered and wrong understanding of famous (and in this case infamous) Supreme Court decisions. From the opinion, which I can't believe you've ever read:

The petitioner, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in San Leandro, California, a "Military Area," contrary to Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the Commanding General of the Western Command, U.S. Army, which directed that, after May 9, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry should be excluded from that area. No question was raised as to petitioner's loyalty to the United States.

. . . Exclusion Order No. 34, which the petitioner knowingly and admittedly violated, was one of a number of military orders and proclamations, all of which were substantially based upon Executive Order No. 9066, 7 Fed.Reg. 1407.

. . . One of the series of orders and proclamations, a curfew order, which, like the exclusion order here, was promulgated pursuant to Executive Order 9066, subjected all persons of Japanese ancestry in prescribed West Coast military areas to remain in their residences from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. As is the case with the exclusion order here, that prior curfew order was designed as a "protection against espionage and against sabotage." In Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, we sustained a conviction obtained for violation of the curfew order. The Hirabayashi conviction and this one thus rest on the same 1942 Congressional Act and the same basic executive and military orders, all of which orders were aimed at the twin dangers of espionage and sabotage.

The 1942 Act was attacked in the Hirabayashi case as an unconstitutional delegation of power; it was contended that the curfew order and other orders on which it rested were beyond the war powers of the Congress, the military authorities, and of the President, as Commander in Chief of the Army, and, finally, that to apply the curfew order against none but citizens of Japanese ancestry amounted to a constitutionally prohibited discrimination solely on account of race. To these questions, we gave the serious consideration which their importance justified. We upheld the curfew order as an exercise of the power of the government to take steps necessary to prevent espionage and sabotage in an area threatened by Japanese attack.

In the light of the principles we announced in the Hirabayashi case, we are unable to conclude that it was beyond the war power of Congress and the Executive to exclude those of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast war area at the time they did.
​

The Court didn't "somehow" bless FDR's executive order. It expressly upheld that EO and the statute on which it was based, as against an American citizen whose loyalty was undisputed. WTF, CO., are you talking about? Is this more about how an interracial marriage case had nothing to do with marriage?

Taft did more than stand by during ratification of the 16th. He was an active supporter of it.

If you understood Taft's ineffective presidency, you'd know that he wasn't an "active" supporter of anything and that the 16th amendment sailed through Congress and was promptly ratified by people who rightly considered Taft a putz.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That's true, but of course he died before WWII ended. The ultimate decider was the estimable HST, whom, as I said, I regard fondly. But if you read the history, the decision to drop the bomb was widely regarded at the time as a no-brainer. President Anybody would have dropped that bomb. But it took stones to fire MacArthur.

Here's what you wrote about FDR:

FDR; 3, mostly for EO 9066, the single most despicable act of any president at any time. Also laid the foundation for the cold war and the iron curtain
​

You harp on the same point every time FDR comes up. You're right that it was a despicable act, but your persistent focus on it is telling. It's for good and abundant reasons that virtually every historian puts FDR in the top three. You routinely ignore all of that, as you did again here.

I'm routinely astounded by your blinkered and wrong understanding of famous (and in this case infamous) Supreme Court decisions. From the opinion, which I can't believe you've ever read:

The petitioner, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in San Leandro, California, a "Military Area," contrary to Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the Commanding General of the Western Command, U.S. Army, which directed that, after May 9, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry should be excluded from that area. No question was raised as to petitioner's loyalty to the United States.

. . . Exclusion Order No. 34, which the petitioner knowingly and admittedly violated, was one of a number of military orders and proclamations, all of which were substantially based upon Executive Order No. 9066, 7 Fed.Reg. 1407.

. . . One of the series of orders and proclamations, a curfew order, which, like the exclusion order here, was promulgated pursuant to Executive Order 9066, subjected all persons of Japanese ancestry in prescribed West Coast military areas to remain in their residences from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. As is the case with the exclusion order here, that prior curfew order was designed as a "protection against espionage and against sabotage." In Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, we sustained a conviction obtained for violation of the curfew order. The Hirabayashi conviction and this one thus rest on the same 1942 Congressional Act and the same basic executive and military orders, all of which orders were aimed at the twin dangers of espionage and sabotage.

The 1942 Act was attacked in the Hirabayashi case as an unconstitutional delegation of power; it was contended that the curfew order and other orders on which it rested were beyond the war powers of the Congress, the military authorities, and of the President, as Commander in Chief of the Army, and, finally, that to apply the curfew order against none but citizens of Japanese ancestry amounted to a constitutionally prohibited discrimination solely on account of race. To these questions, we gave the serious consideration which their importance justified. We upheld the curfew order as an exercise of the power of the government to take steps necessary to prevent espionage and sabotage in an area threatened by Japanese attack.

In the light of the principles we announced in the Hirabayashi case, we are unable to conclude that it was beyond the war power of Congress and the Executive to exclude those of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast war area at the time they did.
​

The Court didn't "somehow" bless FDR's executive order. It expressly upheld that EO and the statute on which it was based, as against an American citizen whose loyalty was undisputed. WTF, CO., are you talking about? Is this more about how an interracial marriage case had nothing to do with marriage?

If you understood Taft's ineffective presidency, you'd know that he wasn't an "active" supporter of anything and that the 16th amendment sailed through Congress and was promptly ratified by people who rightly considered Taft a putz.

Why do you continue to embarrass yourself

The story of the highest government lawyer misconduct in the internment litigation is well known.

The only unknown is wheter FDR knew about it.

 

[Rockfish1]

Why do you continue to embarrass yourself

The story of the highest government lawyer misconduct in the internment litigation is well known.

The only unknown is wheter FDR knew about it.

Did you wonder why my quoted excerpt conspicuously included the Court's statement that Korematsu's loyalty was undisputed? I could have included whatever I wanted in my excerpt, but I specifically chose that. That's because I know what a fumblebrain you are, and I anticipated where you were going. Also, I counted on you to be oblivious to my obvious foreshadowing.

Korematsu expressly upheld FDR's executive order -- just as I said -- and as I tried to explain to you, it did so even though there was no doubt that Korematsu was loyal. Absolutely there was prosecutorial misconduct, but Korematsu is universally ranked with Dred Scott among the Supreme Court's worst decisions, because based on what the Court said the facts were, its decision was heinous.

How do you possibly not know this? Did you really go to law school? Were you awake at the time? Again, your vast ignorance of the Court's most (in)famous decisions suggests that you spent your supposed law school years in a coma.

Good grief, you are such a putz. Again you're arguing that an interracial marriage decision has nothing to do with marriage. What point, in the cramped confines of your mind, are you trying to make?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Did you wonder why my quoted excerpt conspicuously included the Court's statement that Korematsu's loyalty was undisputed? I could have included whatever I wanted in my excerpt, but I specifically chose that. That's because I know what a fumblebrain you are, and I anticipated where you were going. Also, I counted on you to be oblivious to the my obvious foreshadowing.

Korematsu expressly upheld FDR's executive order -- just as I said -- and as I tried to explain to you, it did so even though there was no doubt that Korematsu was loyal. Absolutely there was prosecutorial misconduct, but Korematsu is universally ranked with Dred Scott among the Supreme Court's worst decisions, because based on what the Court said the facts were, its decision was heinous.

How do you possibly not know this? Did you really go to law school? Were you awake at the time? Again, your vast ignorance of the Court's most (in)famous decisions suggests that you spent your supposed law school years in a coma.

Good grief, you are such a putz. Again you're arguing that an interracial marriage decision has nothing to do with marriage. What point, in the cramped confines of your mind, are you trying to make?

Stay focused here big guy

Neither you or I are talking about SCOTUS as one of the more consequential presidents. So you can give your SCOUTS analysis a rest. FDR is the subject here. Even FDR's feeble justification for the heinous EO 9066 was based upon his administration's lie. There was no evidence ever that the Japanese Americans were a threat. There never should have been an order. There never should have been a trial. And there certainly never should have been a SCOTUS decision. The whole legal process was tainted and founded on lawyer misconduct--make that FDR's lawyer misconduct. If FDR didn't personally participate in this deception, the highest ranking members of his administration obviously did. This shameful event is why FDR is consequential and this might be the biggest lie in the history of the presidency.

 

[Rockfish1]

Stay focused here big guy

Neither you or I are talking about SCOTUS as one of the more consequential presidents. So you can give your SCOUTS analysis a rest. FDR is the subject here. Even FDR's feeble justification for the heinous EO 9066 was based upon his administration's lie. There was no evidence ever that the Japanese Americans were a threat. There never should have been an order. There never should have been a trial. And there certainly never should have been a SCOTUS decision. The whole legal process was tainted and founded on lawyer misconduct--make that FDR's lawyer misconduct. If FDR didn't personally participate in this deception, the highest ranking members of his administration obviously did. This shameful event is why FDR is consequential and this might be the biggest lie in the history of the presidency.

Don't stay stupid here, big guy. You ridiculed the notion that Korematsu said exactly what I said it said. You were just flat dead wrong about that -- as you are so regularly wrong about what famous Supreme Court decisions say, despite having ostensibly attended law school. That's why we're talking about Korematsu. We'll stop as soon as you abandon your mischaracterizations.

And you're now reinforcing my point about your hyperpartisan take on FDR -- you fixate on the egregious executive order and ignore everything else that causes people who actually do know history to place him in the pantheon. You are the classic child with a hammer who sees only nails.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Don't stay stupid here, big guy. You ridiculed the notion that Korematsu said exactly what I said it said. You were just flat dead wrong about that -- as you are so regularly wrong about what famous Supreme Court decisions say, despite having ostensibly attended law school. That's why we're talking about Korematsu. We'll stop as soon as you abandon your mischaracterizations.

And you're now reinforcing my point about your hyperpartisan take on FDR -- you fixate on the egregious executive order and ignore everything else that causes people who actually do know history to place him in the pantheon. You are the classic child with a hammer who sees only nails.

Blah, blah, blah

If you want to keep on discussing a SCOTUS opinion that is tainted by government lawyer misconduct go right ahead. You an put that next to your Wiki cite in your next brief. You are wasting everybody's time.

 

[Fro]

Obama - Obamacare, investment in clean energy (mainly through stimulus)/emissions standards, Attorney General actions/judicial appointments lead to LBGT rights/legalized weed faster than would have happened with another President. Stopped country from going into a depression. Executive actions should lead to some sort of immigration reform eventually. I think his actions and Holder's actions as AG have helped gotten the ball rolling for some policing reforms where it relates to the African-American community. Net neutrality is a big win.

Appear to be normalizing relations with Cuba. TPP will be important. Iran relations and the aftermath of "ending" the War in Iraq remain to be seen (although Bush should get a good deal of credit for ISIS). Cleaning up FIFA will be big boost to USA's image if they're able to get Blatter thrown in jail eventually.

 

[HenriPasseur]

This shameful event is why FDR is consequential and this might be the biggest lie in the history of the presidency.

What is consequence of FDR lie?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Good question; my answer

The stain on the presidency and the country is indelible. The internment was bad enough considering the Roosevelt administration's explanation for it. Now that we know the explanation was a lie and and said in bad faith, the internment goes from being a bad mistake to despicable.

Thousands of Japanese Americans lost their businesses, property, and wealth because of foreclosures and tax sales. Those effects will remain imbedded in those families and communities forever.

President Reagan signed the reparations law whereby each Japanese survivor was given $20,000.00 as compensation. A pittance. But that was also an effect which lasted for decades.

 

[Rockfish1]

Good question; my answer

The stain on the presidency and the country is indelible. The internment was bad enough considering the Roosevelt administration's explanation for it. Now that we know the explanation was a lie and and said in bad faith, the internment goes from being a bad mistake to despicable.

Thousands of Japanese Americans lost their businesses, property, and wealth because of foreclosures and tax sales. Those effects will remain imbedded in those families and communities forever.

President Reagan signed the reparations law whereby each Japanese survivor was given $20,000.00 as compensation. A pittance. But that was also an effect which lasted for decades.

Your desire to castigate FDR overwhelms your ability to read Korematsu. The Court always decides cases based on the record before it. Based on what the Court thought it knew, the decision is reprehensible. That's why legal scholars regard it as one of the Court's worst opinions. And as I said, it expressly affirmed FDR's EO.

 

[HenriPasseur]

Good question; my answer

The stain on the presidency and the country is indelible. The internment was bad enough considering the Roosevelt administration's explanation for it. Now that we know the explanation was a lie and and said in bad faith, the internment goes from being a bad mistake to despicable.

Thousands of Japanese Americans lost their businesses, property, and wealth because of foreclosures and tax sales. Those effects will remain imbedded in those families and communities forever.

President Reagan signed the reparations law whereby each Japanese survivor was given $20,000.00 as compensation. A pittance. But that was also an effect which lasted for decades.

Pearl Harbor very bad attack. WW2 very dangerous war. FDR not racist. He want winning war. Consequence bad but understandable. For example 2 million Iraq refugee bad consequence and not understandable.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Your desire to castigate FDR overwhelms your ability to read Korematsu. The Court always decides cases based on the record before it. Based on what the Court thought it knew, the decision is reprehensible. That's why legal scholars regard it as one of the Court's worst opinions. And as I said, it expressly affirmed FDR's EO.

You're killing yourself here

FDR's administration lied about the facts of Japanese American subversive activities in order to make its position look better in court. According to you, SCOTUS STILL had to issue a "reprehensible" decision to support FDR's fake cleaned-up version of the events. Do really think this establishes that I am unfairly castigating FDR?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Pearl Harbor very bad attack. WW2 very dangerous war. FDR not racist. He want winning war. Consequence bad but understandable. For example 2 million Iraq refugee bad consequence and not understandable.

It is in no way understandable

FDR's lawyers lied about the reasons for the internment. That is not understandable. FDR did not intern the Japanese who lived in Hawaii where there was actual evidence of subversive activity. That isn't understandable either.

You might wonder about FDR's real motives here. There is a lot of speculation about that, none of it good. Some say that there was real grass-roots public opinion that wanted the Japanese rounded up. The theory goes that Roosevelt did that because he wanted to secure California's electoral votes. Another theory is that the political bosses in California knew they could acquire substantial assets at deep discounts through the foreclosure and tax sale process on Japanese American property so they persuaded FDR to round 'em up. We don't know about any of this. All we do know is that FDR single-handedly ordered the internment through his executive order and that his Administration lied about the basis for it.

 

[Rockfish1]

You're killing yourself here

FDR's administration lied about the facts of Japanese American subversive activities in order to make its position look better in court. According to you, SCOTUS STILL had to issue a "reprehensible" decision to support FDR's fake cleaned-up version of the events. Do really think this establishes that I am unfairly castigating FDR?

Let me try to explain this to you: I'm not saying that Korematsu was reprehensible based on some state of affairs unknown to the Court. I'm saying it was reprehensible based on the understanding of the facts that the Court actually had -- which understanding included being misled. The Court was misled and acted reprehensibly based on what it thought it knew.

Remember, though, you're the guy who typed this:

Claiming that SCOTUS somehow blessed FDR's EO shows that you plainly ignore what you don't wish to see.
​

As I've demonstrated, this is flat dead wrong. The Court expressly blessed FDR's EO.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Let me try to explain this to you: I'm not saying that Korematsu was reprehensible based on some state of affairs unknown to the Court. I'm saying it was reprehensible based on the understanding of the facts that the Court actually had -- which understanding included being misled. The Court was misled and acted reprehensibly based on what it thought it knew.

Remember, though, you're the guy who typed this:

Claiming that SCOTUS somehow blessed FDR's EO shows that you plainly ignore what you don't wish to see.
​

As I've demonstrated, this is flat dead wrong. The Court expressly blessed FDR's EO.

Geeze, is this why you have your undies in a bundle?

That sentence points my finger at you; not SCOTUS. I know SCOTUS affirmed the EO. I was saying you are sillly for using SCOTUS approval as a means to somehow diminish the severity or the importance of the FDR administration dishonesty and bad faith with the EO; and then its trying to defend the EO in court.

You are the one who broght SCOTUS into this discussion. Why did you do that if you didn't intend to use Korematsu to support your FDR defense?

 

[Rockfish1]

I was saying you are sillly for using SCOTUS approval as a means to somehow diminish the severity or the importance of the FDR administration dishonesty and bad faith with the EO; and then its trying to defend the EO in court.

I wasn't trying to diminish anything. As I'll happily say every time you bring this up, the EO was reprehensible. But so was Korematsu, and that's why it's universally regarded as one of the Court's worst decisions. It's bizarre that you'd say that Roosevelt's decision stained our history but the Court's decision didn't.

You are the one who broght SCOTUS into this discussion. Why did you do that if you didn't intend to use Korematsu to support your FDR defense?

Now I see the problem. You're projecting again. Here is the sentence that set you off:

That EO was undeniably despicable, as was the Korematsu decision that sustained it.
​

From this you leapt to the conclusion that I meant to defend FDR's "undeniably despicable" EO, and to counter what you imagined was my bad faith, you ran off the rails bizarrely dismissing one of the Court's most infamous decisions. For a guy who doesn't do that well reading text, you really ought to leave subtext alone.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I shouldn't wade in here, but I think the key fact is that, as reprehensible as internment was, under no rational analysis can it be called the reason FDR was consequential. It might have been the worst thing he did, but it was by no means the most impactful.

 

[HenriPasseur]

foreclosure and tax sale process on Japanese American property

Bad consequence of American law, right?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I wasn't trying to diminish anything. As I'll happily say every time you bring this up, the EO was reprehensible. But so was Korematsu, and that's why it's universally regarded as one of the Court's worst decisions. It's bizarre that you'd say that Roosevelt's decision stained our history but the Court's decision didn't.

Now I see the problem. You're projecting again. Here is the sentence that set you off:

That EO was undeniably despicable, as was the Korematsu decision that sustained it.
​

From this you leapt to the conclusion that I meant to defend FDR's "undeniably despicable" EO, and to counter what you imagined was my bad faith, you ran off the rails bizarrely dismissing one of the Court's most infamous decisions. For a guy who doesn't do that well reading text, you really ought to leave subtext alone.

??????????

How is Korematsu remotely connected to my point about the consequences of FDR's Order and the lies, deceptions, and misconduct his lawyers used to defend it?

On edit: Once again, we are talking about consequential actions of POTUS, not SCOTUS. In any event, as I've said, the only reason SOCTUS weighed in is BECAUSE of admiinistration misconcuct.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Bad consequence of American law, right?

You would expect bad consequences from the law

When an administration uses misconduct to defend their actions in court.

 

[DrHoops]

Way too early. We just do not have any real data on the lasting impacts of ACA. I notice LBJ not on the list, but Medicare may still prove bigger than ACA.

Marvin, I hate to be a "rube", but who is in your profile pic?

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Marvin, I hate to be a "rube", but who is in your profile pic?

A young Neville Chamberlain

 

[Rockfish1]

I shouldn't wade in here, but I think the key fact is that, as reprehensible as internment was, under no rational analysis can it be called the reason FDR was consequential. It might have been the worst thing he did, but it was by no means the most impactful.

CO. Hoosier is not engaged in rational analysis.

 

[Rockfish1]

How is Korematsu remotely connected to my point about the consequences of FDR's Order and the lies, deceptions, and misconduct his lawyers used to defend it?

Korematsu is "remotely connected" to FDR's infamous EO, because it infamously upheld the EO, in a decision you've apparently never read.

In any event, as I've said, the only reason SOCTUS weighed in is BECAUSE of admiinistration misconcuct.

To the extent this means anything other than, "There would have been no reason for the Court to issue its infamous opinion if FDR hadn't issued his infamous EO," it's false.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Three explanations for your dumbassary

1. You really are a dumbass
2. Your reflexive blinkeritus when it comes to politics makes you a dumbass
3. Your reflexive CO.HDS makes you a dumbass.

I never never never never never never said "There would have been no reason for the Court to issue its infamous opinion if FDR hadn't issued his infamous EO," I said what is in your post as my quote. The EO is one thing. The FDR administration lies and its attorney misconduct as it defended the EO is another. As I said a gazillion times now, but for the misconduct, Korematsu would either never been heard, or at least never been decided as it was.

I have no clue why you steadfastly an irrationally ignore this extremely significant history about EO 9066. Its an open question whether FDR knew about the deception and perjury his legal team pulled in court. Now we know why history is so political. Those stupid leftwing moonbats like you make it so.