The US Supreme Court is not the ultimate moral authority. You’re responding to a comment addressing the abstract long-term consequences of a policy with a specific legal determination saying the policy didn’t happen to violate US law.
At some point, society has to reach a decision so it can function. You can't just throw your hands up in the air waiting for some higher power with a clearer moral standing to show up and do something universally morally unambiguous.
We use the court system as a way of resolving conflicts where there are competing interests and arguments to be made. The Supreme Court had a similar situation happen 116 years ago, and they found that the public health interests outweighed the competing arguments.
Is the process going to get every decision right? No. And they will from time-to-time revisit arguments. Korematsu v. US was overturned by the subsequent ruling Trump v. Hawaii. Jacobson v. Massachusetts has been used as the basis for 116 years worth of cases where public health has to be weighed against other factors, and is not in he same precarious position as Korematsu v. US.
What's the alternative method for making decisions when there are competing legal arguments?
The point beginning this thread was that some set of extraordinary precedent was being set today. ok123456 provided compelling evidence that this is not the case.
You are now failing to accept the point made, and changing the argument.
