TikTok is NOT being banned. TikTok can continue unmodified if it transfers ownership to anyone outside China.
Ok, but I think that's as unconstitutional as a ban, by the same logic. But I'm not a lawyer.
Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
11–20 of 146 posts
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#12First, let me preface that I despise TikTok and I think it is mostly garbage content-wise, however this proposal is simply un-American. Concerns about data privacy and foreign influence are legit, but banning an entire communication platform used by 170 million Americans based on hypothetical threats goes against core First Amendment principles especially considering the government's inability to provide concrete evi…
In a strange way, if it was a blanket China ban, it would almost feel less arbitrary than this, which was crafted to target ByteDance.
The fact they packaged it inside a funding bill that would have been politically unpopular for Congress to oppose also makes me speculate that they felt it wasn't strong enough to stand up to scrutiny on its own merits
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#13TikTok is NOT being banned. TikTok can continue unmodified if it transfers ownership to anyone outside China.
What happens if they refuse to transfer ownership?
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#14I just wish they wouldn't stop with tik tok. Facebook, twitter and all the rest present the same danger.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
American platforms are already banned in China. Some of this is a tit-for-tat, I surmise. The embracing of terrorist sympathizers across the platform is not helping.
Turns out that US law (and custom) says the US can't do that particular kind of "tit for tat". I wasn't aware that China had a veto over the US Constitution.
Is it? Congress has the authority to regulate international trade. If TikTok was shipping books into the USA no one would be arguing whether it would be constitutional to ban them or not. The constitution hasn't been updated for the internet and smartphones but they absolutely can be governed the same way, as courts have ruled over and over again.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#16The authors Ashley Gorski and Patrick Toomey seem to think that the rule of law and advocating for consistent ruling on constitutionality will have an effect. If I’ve learned anything about how the Supreme Court works, it’s that this is a political calculation, not a legal one. The outcomes are decided first, and then jurisprudence is employed to substantiate them — not the other way around.
All courts are, sadly, political because judges are human.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#17The authors Ashley Gorski and Patrick Toomey seem to think that the rule of law and advocating for consistent ruling on constitutionality will have an effect. If I’ve learned anything about how the Supreme Court works, it’s that this is a political calculation, not a legal one. The outcomes are decided first, and then jurisprudence is employed to substantiate them — not the other way around.
I mean there's an irony inherent in the way the Supreme Court works in the modern American era: judicial review is not present anywhere in the Constitution, and yet the Supreme Court uses it to uphold or strike down law according to the Constitution. It's inherently a broken branch of government and it was a mistake for the Democrats to base the last 50-70 years of social progress on leveraging it.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
American platforms are already banned in China. Some of this is a tit-for-tat, I surmise. The embracing of terrorist sympathizers across the platform is not helping.
> American platforms are already banned in China. So if Americans are discriminated in China, would you suggest to do the same with the Chinese in US?
That's making a false analogy and is a logical fallacy trying to compare the two. Finding ways to level international trade to ensure fair trading and equal access to markets is definitely within the government's purview to do and within the national interests of our country.
One rule that I would like to see implemented to equalize trade is to not allow foreign citizens or corporations to be able to purchase real estate in this country or become majority shareholders in any corporation if the country of their citizenship or incorporation does not allow the same reciprocity. It is foolish to allow this kind of imbalanced ownership to happen.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#19The authors Ashley Gorski and Patrick Toomey seem to think that the rule of law and advocating for consistent ruling on constitutionality will have an effect. If I’ve learned anything about how the Supreme Court works, it’s that this is a political calculation, not a legal one. The outcomes are decided first, and then jurisprudence is employed to substantiate them — not the other way around.
I share your cynicism. Do you see any way out?
I feel the same way about the supreme court justices today as I do about Senators for lightly populated states: people operating with little oversight and with little to no accountability to the people who they hold power over. The bigger problem with the Supreme Court is that, largely, the political calculus is mostly cemented for life of the justice.
The only way out I see for the Supreme Court is a Congress and President who are focused on fixing the issue. But, it still feels general awareness of the Supreme Court issues are still to low and not universally felt- maybe in another 2-4 years.
The cynic in me wishes the Democrat appointed judges would start openly taking such large and egregious bribes too to make judicial term limits a bipartisan issue.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#20The authors Ashley Gorski and Patrick Toomey seem to think that the rule of law and advocating for consistent ruling on constitutionality will have an effect. If I’ve learned anything about how the Supreme Court works, it’s that this is a political calculation, not a legal one. The outcomes are decided first, and then jurisprudence is employed to substantiate them — not the other way around.
I mean there's an irony inherent in the way the Supreme Court works in the modern American era: judicial review is not present anywhere in the Constitution, and yet the Supreme Court uses it to uphold or strike down law according to the Constitution. It's inherently a broken branch of government and it was a mistake for the Democrats to base the last 50-70 years of social progress on leveraging it.
This is patently false. Marbury vs. Madison based the principle of judicial review on English common law inherited at the founding.
Just because you say something with enough conviction does not make it true.