The ban takes effect Jan. 19, but Trump asked SCOTUS to put the law on hold because he takes office Jan. 20. Also: Another trans care case is waiting in the wings.
“President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate and the political will to renegotiate …” This from the next Solicitor General of the United States!
It is extraordinarily presumptuous for a president-elect (and, note to D. John Sauer, Trump is NOT the president today!! We have ..."one president at a time".... and, today, it is not Trump) to submit an amicus brief to the Supreme Court. One can likely presume that when Sauer is confirmed as SG, he will switch the government's position in this case (as he will probably do in many other cases). And Sauer STILL has not realized that it is inappropriate to sprinkle politically charged rhetoric in formal legal documents, as in.... "Furthermore, President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government—concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged." Will that rhetoric continue when Sauer is a confirmed DOJ official, charged with presenting the legal position of the United States government? Can (will) career DOJ lawyers rein him in and advise against including political rhetoric in government briefs? How will the Court react to such rhetoric (OK, don't answer that... we probably know)?
I noticed Teachout’s brief cited the Emoluments Clause as an example of our History and Tradition of limiting foreign interference. The same Emoluments Clause the Supreme Court let Trump off the hook for, and which he’ll begin violating the second he’s sworn in I’m sure.
What seems likely to make the TikTok case difficult is that it's hard to see this court offering a limiting principle that allows this law but wouldn't clear the way to allow blocking the BBC or DW because congress disagrees with the viewpoints they express.
And in an increasingly globalized world that could in effect allow a thumb on the scale of us speech.
I mean maybe another court would come up with a Breyerian 5 factor balancing test and examine the sufficiency of the national security claims closely but I doubt this court will.
Elon/Silicon Valley's general realignment behind Trump is all about competition with China - this is why Trump is saying all the dumb shit about Greenland, which holds several rare minerals crucial to EV production that China currently has a monopoly on.
Recommended reading - "ByteDance" Wikipedia. Very detailed history and description of US concerns about TikTok, with 181 references.
Of interest, Wikipedia notes "In November 2024, Donald Trump changed his opinion and spoke out against a ban of the platform in the US after ByteDance investor Jeff Yass had donated to his election campaign."
Didn't someone from TikTok give Trump some money a while back so that he changed his tune from wanting to ban it to supporting it? That's why he submitted an Amicus Curiae in favor.
"Reply briefs from the parties are die by 5 p.m. January 3, and arguments are scheduled for a week later, at 10 a.m. January 10."
Something will "die" -- my respect for the presidency -- soon. But, typo alert.
The Trump brief by the presumptive future solicitor general contains "puffery" that is offensive to me. By the way, if being elected by the people of the U.S. is determinative, the actual president has a bigger mandate popular vote-wise.
Fisher, with who I have long been familiar as a SCOTUS advocate doing defense cases appears to have branched out recently.
“President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate and the political will to renegotiate …” This from the next Solicitor General of the United States!
Note to SCOTUS: I am the Lord thy God!
It is extraordinarily presumptuous for a president-elect (and, note to D. John Sauer, Trump is NOT the president today!! We have ..."one president at a time".... and, today, it is not Trump) to submit an amicus brief to the Supreme Court. One can likely presume that when Sauer is confirmed as SG, he will switch the government's position in this case (as he will probably do in many other cases). And Sauer STILL has not realized that it is inappropriate to sprinkle politically charged rhetoric in formal legal documents, as in.... "Furthermore, President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government—concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged." Will that rhetoric continue when Sauer is a confirmed DOJ official, charged with presenting the legal position of the United States government? Can (will) career DOJ lawyers rein him in and advise against including political rhetoric in government briefs? How will the Court react to such rhetoric (OK, don't answer that... we probably know)?
He took audacious positions in the immunity case and the Court blew past him. Why mess with a winning formula?
I suspect Trump is hoping to lose the case so he can have his cake and eat it too.
I am getting so tired of the deferential treatment Trump is demanding, and seemingly getting.
SCOTUS is being asked to basically give over its functionality to King Trump. That's literally how I'm reading this amicus brief.
Sick of it.
As for Indiana, Good for the ACLU bringing out any and all guns. I'm so discouraged that the acceptance of bigotry in our legal system.
Teachout had a good point on data privacy and TikTok...but Facebook? X-Witter? Google?
One. President. At. A. Time.
I noticed Teachout’s brief cited the Emoluments Clause as an example of our History and Tradition of limiting foreign interference. The same Emoluments Clause the Supreme Court let Trump off the hook for, and which he’ll begin violating the second he’s sworn in I’m sure.
What seems likely to make the TikTok case difficult is that it's hard to see this court offering a limiting principle that allows this law but wouldn't clear the way to allow blocking the BBC or DW because congress disagrees with the viewpoints they express.
And in an increasingly globalized world that could in effect allow a thumb on the scale of us speech.
I mean maybe another court would come up with a Breyerian 5 factor balancing test and examine the sufficiency of the national security claims closely but I doubt this court will.
Elon Musk has business interests in China (we are told). I wonder where he stands on the TikTok issue.
Elon/Silicon Valley's general realignment behind Trump is all about competition with China - this is why Trump is saying all the dumb shit about Greenland, which holds several rare minerals crucial to EV production that China currently has a monopoly on.
Recommended reading - "ByteDance" Wikipedia. Very detailed history and description of US concerns about TikTok, with 181 references.
Of interest, Wikipedia notes "In November 2024, Donald Trump changed his opinion and spoke out against a ban of the platform in the US after ByteDance investor Jeff Yass had donated to his election campaign."
Didn't someone from TikTok give Trump some money a while back so that he changed his tune from wanting to ban it to supporting it? That's why he submitted an Amicus Curiae in favor.
"Reply briefs from the parties are die by 5 p.m. January 3, and arguments are scheduled for a week later, at 10 a.m. January 10."
Something will "die" -- my respect for the presidency -- soon. But, typo alert.
The Trump brief by the presumptive future solicitor general contains "puffery" that is offensive to me. By the way, if being elected by the people of the U.S. is determinative, the actual president has a bigger mandate popular vote-wise.
Fisher, with who I have long been familiar as a SCOTUS advocate doing defense cases appears to have branched out recently.
Money, the ultimate goal