SCOTUS Catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 124
  • Views: 3K
  • Politics 
Tom was actually a debater at UNC, a really really good one. He graduated a year before I started Grad School at UNC (I coached the debate team as a grad assistant, so I just missed coaching him).
Always interesting to learn people's backgrounds on here. I didn't debate in college, but I considered going to Wake Forest and joining their debate squad. I assume you knew Ross Smith? I went to the WFU debate camp when I was in high school each summer.
 
Always interesting to learn people's backgrounds on here. I didn't debate in college, but I considered going to Wake Forest and joining their debate squad. I assume you knew Ross Smith? I went to the WFU debate camp when I was in high school each summer.
Nice! Yeah, Ross was an amazing guy. And the Wake squad was topnotch. My debate partner in college coached there for a long time. We would arrange "scrimmages" before the season started. They were usually better than us.

I went to the WFU workshop the summer before my senior year in high school (87). It was a mindblowing learning experience. It is what convinced me to debate in college.
 
Nice! Yeah, Ross was an amazing guy. And the Wake squad was topnotch. My debate partner in college coached there for a long time. We would arrange "scrimmages" before the season started. They were usually better than us.

I went to the WFU workshop the summer before my senior year in high school (87). It was a mindblowing learning experience. It is what convinced me to debate in college.
I would have been there in 87, but as a rising high school sophomore I was new to debate. Worked my way up to first lab going into my senior year in 1989. Really enjoyed the experience and was great prep for the year. I can't get my kids to join the NFL (Double Ruby here, but I racked up points in extemp, HI, DI and even prose and poetry lol). My senior year of high school I didn't really have a regular policy partner so I dabbled a bit. I have a ton of respect for those who debated in college.
 
I can't stand this Supreme Court. They manage to get silly things wrong, even in otherwise innocuous decisions. Right or wrong, this TikTok case will not change the law. It was unanimous, so it's not just the right-wingers this time. And maybe the problem is that it was issued on such an expedited basis, but anyway, here's a passage:

Petitioners argue that the Act is content based on its face because it excludes from the definition of “covered company” any company that operates an application “whoseprimary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.”§2(g)(2)(B); see Brief for Petitioners in No. 24–656, pp. 26–27 (Brief for TikTok); Brief for Petitioners in No. 24–657,p. 26 (Brief for Creator Petitioners). We need not decide whether that exclusion is content based. The question before the Court is whether the Act violates the First Amendment as applied to petitioners.

This is nonsense. Every as-applied challenge necessarily includes a facial challenge, because if the law is unconstitutional on its face, it can't be applied against anyone. The as-applied challenge typically focuses on factors specific to plaintiffs, because the plaintiffs there are not trying to prove that it is invalid in all applications. But if it is, the as-applied challenge has to succeed.

So to determine whether the law is content-neutral, we have to look at the face of the statute. And if there is an exclusion there, the law is content based based on reams of recent Supreme Court decisions. Moreover, even as-applied challengers get to argue that the law is under-inclusive, because under-inclusivity is relevant for assessing the strength of the state interest. If the state says, "we're making X illegal because it does bad stuff, unless it's X in the form of A, B, C, D, E or F in which case it's fine," then the presence of those exclusions casts doubt on whether X is actually that harmful and/or whether the legislators' intent was really to address that bad stuff. This isn't always a good argument, but it's always available.

The idea that you can judge a statute as being underinclusive or content-based **as applied to** the plaintiffs is just lunacy. It makes no sense. First, if the law is being enforced against a plaintiff, which is the only reason the plaintiff would be in court, then it's not under-inclusive relative to that plaintiff and that passage above would obliterate under-inclusiveness review. And the same is more or less true for a content-neutral or content-based determination, though it's not quite as clear-cut. For present purposes, it suffices to say that tiktok is in court because it doesn't meet one of the exclusions. So it is content-based as applied to tiktok.

The rest of the paragraph tries to clean up this mess, and I suppose it makes the claim above look less obviously foolish. But it doesn't answer these objections.

Compared to what the Supreme Court has been doing, this is tiddlywinks -- but it's frustrating because the Supreme Court is supposed to be better than this. Supreme Court opinions should include zero statements that a guy like me can read and think, "that's obviously false." Sigh.
 
I don’t understand their reasoning for banning TikTok. They claim it’s because China controls the data, but Temu tracks way more data than TikTok. It doesn’t make sense.
 
I don’t understand their reasoning for banning TikTok. They claim it’s because China controls the data, but Temu tracks way more data than TikTok. It doesn’t make sense.
Temu seems to me to definitely need banning. You can buy nearly anything illegal or illicit on there and they brazenly violate every trademark, copyright, etc.
 
I don’t understand their reasoning for banning TikTok. They claim it’s because China controls the data, but Temu tracks way more data than TikTok. It doesn’t make sense.
Do you have a source for the amount of data collected by Temu vs TikTok? I'd like to read it, if you do. Thanks.
 
Do you have a source for the amount of data collected by Temu vs TikTok? I'd like to read it, if you do. Thanks.

Temu also requires users to enter in more data such as name, address, payment info, etc….while TikTok just requires a username for the casual user (they recently added a commerce section which would require more info). But Temu seems just a bad or worse than TikTok, but for some reason is being ignored.
 

Temu also requires users to enter in more data such as name, address, payment info, etc….while TikTok just requires a username for the casual user (they recently added a commerce section which would require more info). But Temu seems just a bad or worse than TikTok, but for some reason is being ignored.
Thanks!
 

Temu also requires users to enter in more data such as name, address, payment info, etc….while TikTok just requires a username for the casual user (they recently added a commerce section which would require more info). But Temu seems just a bad or worse than TikTok, but for some reason is being ignored.
Congress doesn't move at the speed of technology. If Congress was a grandparent they would tell their grandkids I got you that new Nintendo, and the kid would rip it open expecting a Switch and find they got a GameCube
 
How is he "illegitimate?"

You saying that is EXACTLY like the MAGAs saying that Trump won in 2020.

The rules of the Constitution of the United States of America were followed. No law, rule, etc.. were broken or even compromised.

Just because you don't like the make up of the court and your party doesn't have absolute power like you dream of daily doesn't make him an illegitimate justice. It makes you look petty and small.

I would also like to point out that if given the exact same scenario you would be championing Chuck Schumer for holding on a hearing for a Trump nominated Justice and agreeing whole heartedly with it. You know, "for the sake of democracy."

Love that line coming from a political party that is quick to accuse the GOP of "subverting democracy" but has a nominee that has received absolutely ZERO votes from the American people.

Holding onto President Biden just long enough to make sure that you could coronate the next nominee rather than have a democratically elected one pretty much takes you off the moral high ground.

God help us if you people ever get absolute power in this country.
But they do have the hypocrisy high ground. Damn near built a hypocrisy mountain in 24.
 
I don’t understand their reasoning for banning TikTok. They claim it’s because China controls the data, but Temu tracks way more data than TikTok. It doesn’t make sense.

The members of congress who are actively trying to ban/force the sale of TickTok are heavy investors with Meta & Google. Meta & Google have tried to duplicate ByteDance's algorithms and have been unsuccessful. Which is why they tried to force a sale of the American sector, which would give them access to said algorithm.

The Pubs are heavily invested in Meta. Hence Zuckerberg bending the knee to Trump and Facebook suddenly going fact free. They want to stoke the fires of disinformation that fuel the idiots who make up their base.
 
For reference, I started a stand-alone TikTok ban thread now that SCOTUS has weighed in:

 

Supreme Court to weigh bid to create first US religious charter school​

WASHINGTON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a bid led by two Catholic dioceses to establish in Oklahoma the nation's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in a case testing the separation of church and state.

A lower court blocked the establishment of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, ruling that its funding arrangement violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment limits on government endorsement of religion. The Supreme Court took up an appeal of that ruling by a state school board and the organizers of the proposed school.

🤨
 

Supreme Court to weigh bid to create first US religious charter school​

WASHINGTON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a bid led by two Catholic dioceses to establish in Oklahoma the nation's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in a case testing the separation of church and state.

A lower court blocked the establishment of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, ruling that its funding arrangement violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment limits on government endorsement of religion. The Supreme Court took up an appeal of that ruling by a state school board and the organizers of the proposed school.

🤨
The Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked this based on the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitution, BTW.

Anyway, “… The justices will review an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that said the proposal violated both the state and federal constitutions.

The brief court order noted that conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who would normally be a potential key vote in such a case, will not participate. The court did not say why.

Barrett was previously a professor at Notre Dame Law School. and still has ties there. Its religious liberty law clinic is representing the school. …”

 

Supreme Court declines to take up challenge to Tennessee law restricting drag shows​



“The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a Tennessee law restricting some drag performances, allowing the first-in-the-nation law to remain largely intact.

In a brief, unsigned order, the justices denied a Tennessee theater company’s request to intervene in its challenge to the state’s limits on drag, first enacted in 2023 by the Republican-dominated Legislature. While the law does not explicitly mention drag shows, state lawmakers said the measure was meant to restrict them.

A Tennessee court had previously deemed the law, which targets “adult-oriented performances” that take place in public or where they may be seen by minors, unconstitutional, blocking its enforcement in parts of the state. A federal appeals court reversed that decision in July, ruling that the Memphis-based theater group Friends of George’s lacked the legal standing to challenge Tennessee’s restrictions.

Friends of George’s had argued the state’s law would negatively impact them because they produce “drag-centric performances, comedy sketches, and plays” outside of age-restricted venues. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the group did not risk violating the law because their performances were not “harmful to minors.”

In passing the restrictions on drag, state lawmakers amended Tennessee’s definition of adult cabaret entertainment to mean adult-oriented performances that feature topless or exotic dancers or “male or female impersonators.” Restricted performances must also be “harmful to minors,” which Tennessee law defines as lacking “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific values” and appealing “to the prurient, shameful or morbid interests.”

In dismissing Friend of George’s case, the 6th Circuit ruled the law only prohibits public performances that lack value “for a reasonable 17-year-old,” which the group argued to the Supreme Court unlawfully narrowed the scope of the law.

… President Trump, who earlier this month announced he was ending the terms of several Kennedy Center board members and naming himself chairman, said that decision was made, in part, because of a drag performance held at the cultural center last year. In a post on Truth Social, Trump called drag performances “anti-American propaganda.” …”
 
Bump for actual decisions expected to be released later today.
 
Back
Top