from #CommonDreams
Morehouse Students Show Solidarity With Gaza During #Biden Commencement Speech
"It is my stance as a #Morehouse man, nay as a human being, to call for an immediate and permanent cease-fire in the #Gaza Strip," said valedictorian DeAngelo Fletcher.
I think whenever I see a headline or a person making some claim about #section230 the first reaction needs to be, “Okay, section 230 of what? What do you think that refers to?”
So many people have no idea what section 230 actually says, or does, but at least this response would help weed out the most uninformed of the people spouting out about it.
Let's dive into some citations Kagan used and see what the underlying stuff says.
For fun---because I definitely see a Federalist citation in there and the beauty of the writing is irresistible.
Chiafalo v. Washington, you may actually recall, was a Supreme Court case involving "Faithless Electors" in the 2016 election. (Image: Summary of Facts)
The Court permitted States to penalize the faithless electors.
The Pocket Veto Case was a case in which President Coolidge allowed a bill passed by Congress to expire without signing it after Congress' adjournment.
The question was whether the bill was law considering the Presentment Clause in Article I. (Image 1)
The Clause reads like an LSAT logic game, but the Court held the bill did not become law.
The important part for Kagan's opinion is the quote's context: (Image 2).
So if the Executive has been allowed to do something for a long time, and its done it for a long time, and the Legislature let it do it for a long time, and the Judiciary approved its doing it for a long time, then there is a constitutional inertia that exists.
The Court can intervene, but only if it can overcome the inertia.
Kagan then details the 200 years of unbroken tradition with broad Congressional discretion over form of Appropriation.
"The founding-era practice that the Court relates (Image 1) became the 19th-century practice (Image 2), which became the 20th-century practice (Image 3), which became today’s. (Image 4)"
[parenthetical added by me]
And throwing in Scalia for good measure. Everyone loves a good Scalia cite.
Kagan then notes that there are many appropriations made which are not on an annual basis and not required to return to the Legislature for additional funding:
Customs Service, Post Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Definitely an office I knew existed 😉), and the Federal Reserve Board.
And that's about it for Kagan and her interesting squad of justices.
McCulloch v. Maryland was an early case from 1819 in which the State of Maryland had put a tax on a bank chartered by the federal government. The litigation stemmed from a refusal to pay the tax, and the Court of Appeals held the bank to be unconstitutional, necessitating Supreme Court review.
Ends up being the seminal "necessary & proper" case.
And the part to which she cites... is exactly that:
She cites to this part of Byrd, citing Richardson.
The context around the quoted part is, I think, extremely important. (Image 2).
It not only notes that the court's role is not general supervision, but that the "irreplaceable value of [judicial review]" is its protection of individual liberties.