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.
As with all of her postings, everything Heather Cox Richardson says today deserves attention. She opens by noting that the Dow Jones closed above 40,000 for the first time in history. But "in comparison to the breathless coverage of the stock market during Trump’s administration, this milestone is getting very little coverage."
Justice Samuel Alito is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court and, frankly, to the country. He’s biased and corrupt. It’s time to expand the courts. #msnbc#alito#supremecourt
After the 2020 presidential #election, as some #Trump supporters falsely claimed that President #Biden had stolen the office, many of them displayed a startling symbol outside their homes, on their cars & online: an upside-down #AmericanFlag.
One of the homes flying an inverted flag during that time was the residence of #SupremeCourt Justice Samuel A #Alito Jr, in Alexandria, VA, acc/to photographs & interviews w/neighbors.
“These people [Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas] are such a disgrace to America. And it’s worth remembering that unlike Trump, they’re not really fascists. They’re more Leninists than fascists.”
“They’re part of a revolutionary vanguard that’s going to transform society into a right-wing theocracy whether the people want it or not (they don’t). As such, they see breaking the normal rules as part of their duty to their movement, and they see nothing wrong with having a wife who flies a MAGA flag or, in the case of Ginni Thomas, engages in ceaseless radical political activity.”