Newsmax TV & Webwww.newsmax.comFREE - In Google Play
Newsmax TV & Webwww.newsmax.comFREE - On the App Store
Skip to main content
Tags: google | kagan | thomas

Justices, Left Journalist Confirm Validity of Dobbs Decision

united states supreme court justice elena kagan

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan in the East Conference Room of the Supreme Court building - Oct. 7, 2022 in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court began a new term after Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was added to the bench in September, 2022 (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Michael Dorstewitz By Wednesday, 22 February 2023 11:15 AM EST Current | Bio | Archive

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court’s liberal justices appeared to accept, without realizing it, that maybe its decision striking down Roe v. Wade eight months earlier, was correctly held after all.

That decision, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, sent the abortion issue back to Congress and to the states.

In addition, at least one far-left journalist appeared to agree that maybe Dobbs was correctly held — again, without realizing it.

On Tuesday the high court heard oral arguments in Gonzales vs. Google, which centers on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

That statute gives legal protections to websites and social media platforms from liability for content published by others.

At issue in Gonzales is whether Section 230 protects internet platforms even when their algorithms prefer some users’ content at the expense of others'.

The lawsuit alleges that YouTube, which is owned by Google, used algorithms to recommend Islamic State videos to users in violation of the Antiterrorism Act, which promoted ISIS recruitment. The case was filed by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old American woman who was killed in a Paris ISIS attack in 2015.

"Google and its supporters warned in legal briefs that a ruling against them could massively reshape legal liability for tech companies across the county," SCOTUS Blog reported, "but after nearly three hours of argument on Tuesday, the justices appeared wary of taking such a significant step."

And that wariness was shared by both conservative and liberal justices alike.

Their belief was that this was perhaps an issue better left to Congress.

On the conservative side, Justice Clarence Thomas reportedly appeared unwilling to rule against Google, despite the fact that he’s been openly critical of Section 230’s protections, which he believes are overly-broad.

At the other end of the spectrum is Justice Elena Kagan.

"These are not, like, the nine greatest experts on the internet," Justice Elena Kagan observed.

Ian Millhiser, senior correspondent for Vox, a far-left publication, was in agreement.

"There is still a fair amount of mystery . . .  surrounding just how the Court will write its Gonzalez opinion. But, despite this uncertainty, enough of the justices appeared bothered by the potential impact of a victory for the plaintiffs that such a victory appears unlikely," he wrote.

"The Court seems likely to show some uncharacteristic humility in this case. And that means that the Court’s ultimate decision probably will not light much of the online world on fire."

Millhiser appeared to be even ecstatic in a tweet promoting his column.

"I really admire Elena Kagan's ‘maybe this Court shouldn't decide every f**king question on the planet’ approach to being a Supreme Court justice," he tweeted.

"Wish we had more of her."

Actually we’ve had "more of her" all along, as actor, stuntman, and producer Matthew S Harrison, reminded the Vox writer.

"Cough Dobbs," tweeted Harrison, who describes himself as a Constitution-loving gun connoisseur. "Cough cough cough."

As he implies, the court used much the same reasoning in Dobbs.

The Constitution is silent on a mother’s right to abort her child.

It’s also silent on the right of a fetus.

The issue of abortion is therefore outside the purview of the court and would be more properly addressed by Congress and state legislatures.

As far as that goes, perhaps the court should have used the same logic in a 2015 case, Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that same sex couples enjoyed the fundamental right to marry as do traditional couples.

Liberal justices typically interpret the Constitution as "a living document" — one that changes with the times.

Conservative justices are generally originalists, that is, they interpret the Constitution as it was intended by its authors, at the time it was written.

Kagan and Millhiser, welcome to the world of originalism.

Now that y’all understand the basic concept, maybe next we can apply it to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to Newsmax. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter. Read Michael Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.

© 2023 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

At issue in Gonzales is whether Section 230 protects internet platforms even when their algorithms prefer some users’ content at the expense of others'.
google, kagan, thomas
Wednesday, 22 February 2023 11:15 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Sign up for Newsmax’s Daily Newsletter

Receive breaking news and original analysis - sent right to your inbox.

(Optional for Local News)
Privacy: We never share your email address.
Join the Newsmax Community
Read and Post Comments
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Download the NewsmaxTV App
Get the NewsmaxTV App for iOS Get the NewsmaxTV App for Android Scan QR code to get the NewsmaxTV App
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved