Oh I get it.... you dont like Trump or his lawyer. Got it. Section III does raise 1st Amendment issues which in of itself raises the Constitutionality of the Law. Perhaps it is you that has no read the brief.
Oh I get it.... you dont like Trump or his lawyer. Got it. Section III does raise 1st Amendment issues which in of itself raises the Constitutionality of the Law. Perhaps it is you that has no read the brief.
First, there is NO DOUBT that the Tik-Tok case raises First Amendment issues. Steve has never said anything to the contrary. In fact, in his first substantive Substack post on the Tik-Tok case (Bonus 113: Tick Tock for TikTok, dated 12/19/24, a post that Steve linked to and unlocked in his Post 115, so that unpaid subscribers could read it for free) Steve refers to the Tik-Tok case as presenting “potentially monumental First Amendment questions.” He said nothing to the contrary in his Post 115 to which you commented: “To say that Constitutional Issues are not present or primary is simply absurd[.]” No one that I am aware of, and certainly not Steve (or me) is saying or arguing that the Tik-Tok Case does not raise serious and important Constitutional issues, including, but not limited, to First Amendment ones. It absolutely does raise those issues.
Trump is not a party to the Tik-Tok lawsuit. He, through his lawyer, filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, which, of course, he completely has the right to do, but that does not make him a party to the case, and it does not give him standing to ask SCOTUS to grant him any relief; especially not relief that SCOTUS cannot give in this case - ruling for neither petitioners nor respondent, but staying everything to, as Trump requests, allow Trump to settle the dispute himself.
Oh I get it.... you dont like Trump or his lawyer. Got it. Section III does raise 1st Amendment issues which in of itself raises the Constitutionality of the Law. Perhaps it is you that has no read the brief.
No, it appears that you don’t get it.
First, there is NO DOUBT that the Tik-Tok case raises First Amendment issues. Steve has never said anything to the contrary. In fact, in his first substantive Substack post on the Tik-Tok case (Bonus 113: Tick Tock for TikTok, dated 12/19/24, a post that Steve linked to and unlocked in his Post 115, so that unpaid subscribers could read it for free) Steve refers to the Tik-Tok case as presenting “potentially monumental First Amendment questions.” He said nothing to the contrary in his Post 115 to which you commented: “To say that Constitutional Issues are not present or primary is simply absurd[.]” No one that I am aware of, and certainly not Steve (or me) is saying or arguing that the Tik-Tok Case does not raise serious and important Constitutional issues, including, but not limited, to First Amendment ones. It absolutely does raise those issues.
Trump is not a party to the Tik-Tok lawsuit. He, through his lawyer, filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, which, of course, he completely has the right to do, but that does not make him a party to the case, and it does not give him standing to ask SCOTUS to grant him any relief; especially not relief that SCOTUS cannot give in this case - ruling for neither petitioners nor respondent, but staying everything to, as Trump requests, allow Trump to settle the dispute himself.