A friend-of-the-Court brief filed by the incoming President's nominee to be the next Solicitor General is a revealing—and alarming—example of political arguments wholly divorced from law.
My gravest concerns are: 1) the Supreme Court agreed to consider a brief that was without merit (to rule on an action taking place in some future time) and 2)the Court agreed to consider a flimsily structured brief made by a person not yet approved by the Senate on behalf of a citizen who is not yet President of the United States but whose future office is referenced. Is the Supreme Court now so severely compromised by its own corrupt acts relating to persons they subsequently adjudicated in favor of and who are known supporters of Mr Trump that they are too vulnerable to deny Mr Trump anything?
What are you talking about? The Supreme Court didn’t agree to consider the arguments in this brief. They will likely give time to the US, TikTok, and the TikTok creators.
"One almost wonders why the brief even bothers to cite such an obviously inapposite authority." ... Please write about Rule 11 violations by Trump's lawyers. Unless the courts and parties push back, Trump's lawyers will continue to lie with impunity.
Steve, you miss the three main points of the brief. The first, and primary was to offer the public flattery of Trump that he demands of all his followers. The second is so that Trump can say "I argued to keep Tick-tok"
The third is to test the loyalty of her s judges, and force them to re-announce their loyalty to trump over the law.
I can see Thomas heaping flattery on Trump's brief in his dissent
"whichever arguments get him what he wants in that particular moment" so many people sit around pretending that there just has to be something more to it than this.
I feel sure you are correct, Steve, but then I also think the Constitution is a thing even when inconvenient, and the majority of the GOP judges seem to disagree on that point.
So what happens when a country no longer depends on its founding documents? If my life depended on it, I would guess at least 5-4 that they'll find a way to do exactly what Trump wants.
On a different note, why is it that this is being heard so very quickly and yet the special counsel had to wait so very much longer? Surely share-holder value is not more important than an upcoming election that involves criminal charges?.... Hmm
This goes beyond ring-kissing, it's kissing where the sun don't shine. But that is exactly what Trump wants out of the Justice Department. Reagan's solicitor general, Charles Fried, wore out the court's patience with his extremist, tendentious briefs, and the Court wouldn't even let the US argue as amicus curiae at the end. Of course, we can't expect this from the Trump Court, where the justices know what's expected of them and do it.
1st it has obvious constitutional 1st amendment concerns as those that are losing speech are Americans and the 1st Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" Abridging as we know means to curtail which means to reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on. I am no big fan of Tik Tok but this is a blatant law making exercise of the legislative branch restricting the rights of Americans to express themselves. To allow the government to continue in its efforts to ban Tik Tok not only violates this right but creates a dangerous and slippery slope of viewpoint-based censorship that impedes the free exchange of ideas and expression... where does government want to restrict next?
It is “well established” that the First Amendment “protects the right to receive information and ideas.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969). Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 302 (1965) struck down law that US Government had right to access speech from foreign sources and has repeatedly reiterated the same as well as types of access in Meese v. Keene, Kleindienst v. Mandel, Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997) and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 733–34 (2024).
To say that Constitutional Issues are not present or primary is simply absurd
Did you even read Steve’s post? Do you disagree that the Trump brief does not contest the constitutionality of the law? Do you disagree that the brief does not cite a single relevant authority? Including the ones you so glibly cite?
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.
My gravest concerns are: 1) the Supreme Court agreed to consider a brief that was without merit (to rule on an action taking place in some future time) and 2)the Court agreed to consider a flimsily structured brief made by a person not yet approved by the Senate on behalf of a citizen who is not yet President of the United States but whose future office is referenced. Is the Supreme Court now so severely compromised by its own corrupt acts relating to persons they subsequently adjudicated in favor of and who are known supporters of Mr Trump that they are too vulnerable to deny Mr Trump anything?
What are you talking about? The Supreme Court didn’t agree to consider the arguments in this brief. They will likely give time to the US, TikTok, and the TikTok creators.
Thanks Steve. Great read
"One almost wonders why the brief even bothers to cite such an obviously inapposite authority." ... Please write about Rule 11 violations by Trump's lawyers. Unless the courts and parties push back, Trump's lawyers will continue to lie with impunity.
Steve, you miss the three main points of the brief. The first, and primary was to offer the public flattery of Trump that he demands of all his followers. The second is so that Trump can say "I argued to keep Tick-tok"
The third is to test the loyalty of her s judges, and force them to re-announce their loyalty to trump over the law.
I can see Thomas heaping flattery on Trump's brief in his dissent
"whichever arguments get him what he wants in that particular moment" so many people sit around pretending that there just has to be something more to it than this.
I feel sure you are correct, Steve, but then I also think the Constitution is a thing even when inconvenient, and the majority of the GOP judges seem to disagree on that point.
So what happens when a country no longer depends on its founding documents? If my life depended on it, I would guess at least 5-4 that they'll find a way to do exactly what Trump wants.
On a different note, why is it that this is being heard so very quickly and yet the special counsel had to wait so very much longer? Surely share-holder value is not more important than an upcoming election that involves criminal charges?.... Hmm
This goes beyond ring-kissing, it's kissing where the sun don't shine. But that is exactly what Trump wants out of the Justice Department. Reagan's solicitor general, Charles Fried, wore out the court's patience with his extremist, tendentious briefs, and the Court wouldn't even let the US argue as amicus curiae at the end. Of course, we can't expect this from the Trump Court, where the justices know what's expected of them and do it.
Only he can fix it.
1st it has obvious constitutional 1st amendment concerns as those that are losing speech are Americans and the 1st Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" Abridging as we know means to curtail which means to reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on. I am no big fan of Tik Tok but this is a blatant law making exercise of the legislative branch restricting the rights of Americans to express themselves. To allow the government to continue in its efforts to ban Tik Tok not only violates this right but creates a dangerous and slippery slope of viewpoint-based censorship that impedes the free exchange of ideas and expression... where does government want to restrict next?
It is “well established” that the First Amendment “protects the right to receive information and ideas.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969). Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 302 (1965) struck down law that US Government had right to access speech from foreign sources and has repeatedly reiterated the same as well as types of access in Meese v. Keene, Kleindienst v. Mandel, Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997) and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 733–34 (2024).
To say that Constitutional Issues are not present or primary is simply absurd
Did you even read Steve’s post? Do you disagree that the Trump brief does not contest the constitutionality of the law? Do you disagree that the brief does not cite a single relevant authority? Including the ones you so glibly cite?
Your comment is so bad it’s not even wrong!
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.
SCOTUS needs Trump's 'protection'. So there's that. Check back on the 19th.