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
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
SCOTUS needs Trump's 'protection'. So there's that. Check back on the 19th.