SCOTUS Catch-all | SCOTUS upholds TikTok ban law

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 107
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 

Supreme Court seems likely to uphold a law that could ban TikTok in the US​


apnews.com

Supreme Court seems likely to uphold a law that could ban TikTok in the US

The law that could ban TikTok is before the Supreme Court, with the justices largely holding the app's fate in their hands.
apnews.com apnews.com

“… Hearing arguments in a momentous clash of free speech and national security concerns, the justices seemed persuaded by arguments that the national security threat posed by the company’s connections to China override concerns about restricting the speech, either of TikTok or its 170 million users in the United States. …”

——
the Chinese Embassy put out the following statement:

“…

Chinese embassy criticizes the US for using state power to ‘suppress’ TikTok​

The Chinese embassy in Washington issued a statement on Friday criticizing the U.S. government for using state power to suppress TikTok and said Beijing will “take all necessary measures to resolutely safeguard its legitimate rights and interests.”

“The U.S. has never found evidence that TikTok threatens U.S. national security, but it has used state power and abused national security reasons to unreasonably suppress it, which is not fair or just at all,” said Liu Pengyu, the embassy spokesman.

“The U.S. should truly respect the principles of market economy and fair competition, stop unreasonably suppressing companies from other countries, and provide an open, fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for companies from all countries to invest and operate in the U.S.” …”
 
nycfan said:

​

Chinese embassy criticizes the US for using state power to ‘suppress’ TikTok​

The Chinese embassy in Washington issued a statement on Friday criticizing the U.S. government for using state power to suppress TikTok and said Beijing will “take all necessary measures to resolutely safeguard its legitimate rights and interests.”

“The U.S. has never found evidence that TikTok threatens U.S. national security, but it has used state power and abused national security reasons to unreasonably suppress it, which is not fair or just at all,” said Liu Pengyu, the embassy spokesman.

“The U.S. should truly respect the principles of market economy and fair competition, stop unreasonably suppressing companies from other countries, and provide an open, fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for companies from all countries to invest and operate in the U.S.” …”
Click to expand...
So it appears China is more MAGA-like than I had suspected. Both are immune to irony.
 
www.usatoday.com

Supreme Court allows state and local climate suits against oil companies to proceed

Numerous state and local governments argue oil and gas companies deliberately hid the environmental impacts of fossil fuels. They're seeking damages.
www.usatoday.com www.usatoday.com

Supreme Court allows state and local climate suits against oil companies to proceed​


"... The court on Monday declined to consider if federal law prevents states and cities from suing the companies.

The fossil fuel industry said it was critically important for the court to weigh in now before it spends significant resources fighting the suits, which oil companies said are a “serious threat to one of the nation’s most vital industries.” ..."
 

Supreme Court Rejects New Bid to Let President Fire Agency Heads​



"The US Supreme Court turned away a fresh bid to put independent federal agencies under direct presidential control, as the justices steered clear of a fight with implications for the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission.

The high court, without comment, refused to hear an appeal from Leachco Inc., an Oklahoma-based company seeking to stop a complaint being pressed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Leachco contended the case was fundamentally flawed because the CPSC’s commissioners have job protections that insulate them from political accountability. The company argued in its appeal that the Constitution gives the president broad power to fire the heads of executive-branch agencies.

Leachco urged the Supreme Court to reconsider a 90-year-old ruling that paved the way for the independent agencies that now proliferate across the US government. The 1935 ruling, known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, upheld job protections enjoyed by FTC commissioners. ..."
 

Supreme Court to hear case challenging Obamacare’s preventive coverage​

At issue is a provision requiring health-care plans to cover no-cost preventive care, including cancer screenings, immunizations and contraception.

"The Supreme Court said Friday it will review the constitutionality of a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires health plans to provide no-cost preventive care, including cancer screenings, immunizations and contraception, to millions of Americans.

In Becerra v. Braidwood Management Inc., a Christian-owned business and six individuals challenged the preventive-care provision because it requires health-care plans to cover pre-exposure medications intended to prevent the spread of HIV among certain at-risk populations. The plaintiffs argue that the medications “encourage and facilitate homosexual behavior,” which conflicts with their religious beliefs.

... A Texas district court sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force — which set the coverage requirements — was unconstitutional because its members had not been confirmed by the Senate and that all mandates it had imposed since 201o were invalid.
The government appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling with one major caveat. The 5th Circuit did not invalidate the task force’s mandates universally, only as they applied to the plaintiffs.

Both the plaintiffs and the government asked the Supreme Court to take up the case, saying the lower court’s rulings could allow other plaintiffs to seek a nationwide ruling that would invalidate the preventive-care provision.

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, who defended the case on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, warned in court filings that such a decision could be catastrophic, putting preventive care out of reach for many Americans who have come to rely on it. ..."
 
nycfan said:

Supreme Court Rejects New Bid to Let President Fire Agency Heads​



"The US Supreme Court turned away a fresh bid to put independent federal agencies under direct presidential control, as the justices steered clear of a fight with implications for the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission.

The high court, without comment, refused to hear an appeal from Leachco Inc., an Oklahoma-based company seeking to stop a complaint being pressed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Leachco contended the case was fundamentally flawed because the CPSC’s commissioners have job protections that insulate them from political accountability. The company argued in its appeal that the Constitution gives the president broad power to fire the heads of executive-branch agencies.

Leachco urged the Supreme Court to reconsider a 90-year-old ruling that paved the way for the independent agencies that now proliferate across the US government. The 1935 ruling, known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, upheld job protections enjoyed by FTC commissioners. ..."
Click to expand...
This is good news. Our institutions are holding.
 
Last edited:
I'm beginning to think that the Gods/shamans/universe need to send a gigantic EMP that sets back electronics & tech/Elon a hundred years or more.
Technology is proving to be a quicker way to destruction of our society than illnesses or climate.
 
Last edited:
JCTarheel82 said:

China considers selling TikTok U.S. operations to Musk, Bloomberg reports

Frustrated Headache GIF by Kelly Clarkson
Click to expand...
There are so many antitrust problems with this that Congress would have to amend the law. Plus, I can't imagine any way China would take Tesla stock in any deal. Their goal is to crush Tesla and other EV manufacturers. So there would need to be financing, but there's no way a bank loans a lot of money to Musk in light of what he did to Twitter. I suppose there are creative ways to get the TSLA to undergird the deal, but it seems like a longshot.

And it's hard to imagine that Elon solves the ByteDance conundrum -- i.e. they can't sell the business without the algorithm, but they can't sell the algorithm. Is China really likely to trust Elon? Seriously?

Seems like a planted story by someone near Elon or Elon.
 
SmilingJack said:
I'm beginning to think that the Gods/shamans/universe need to send a gigantic EMP that sets back electronics & tech/Elon a hundred years or more.
Technology is proving to be a quicker way to destruction of our society than illnesses or climate.
Click to expand...
Season 5 Nbc GIF by The Office

We've all been enrolled in a social experiment that nobody consented to.
 
JCTarheel82 said:

China considers selling TikTok U.S. operations to Musk, Bloomberg reports

200.gif
Click to expand...
Seriously, at this point would Musk be any better than the Chinese? They're both foreigners who each, in their own way, form a credible threat to the United States. Given all of the damage we're seeing from social media, maybe we should just shut it down. But I don't think Trump will ultimately go for it, given how popular it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top