TikTok could be banned in U.S. with upcoming bill to prohibit foreign tech

Like we needed another reason to save this platform! Long live TikTok.

 
Saw a headline saying TikTok could possibly be sold to Musk.

Saw another talking about another Chinese owned app that US TikTokers are moving to.

Good lord.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
Saw a headline saying TikTok could possibly be sold to Musk.
Click to expand...
A fitting end. Unfuckingbelievable. Bytedance calls if fiction but the Chinese government is the entity attempting to sell it, didn't Bytedance say they had nothing to do with the company? It would only bolster claims that they had their hands in it the entire time.

Chew Toy McCoy said:
Saw another talking about another Chinese owned app that US TikTokers are moving to.

Good lord.
Click to expand...
Caught this too, Lemon8 but it's also owned bytedance they will face the same scrutiny.

This guy gets it
 
Eric said:
Caught this too, Lemon8 but it's also owned bytedance they will face the same scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Heard US tiktokers are now turning to a different app (red something or other) that is literally run by the Chinese government. The US users are praising China the same way Tucker Carlson was praising Russia based entirely on his experience in a subway station. :ROFLMAO:

On a related note, as one pundit put it - As much I have against China, they at least didn't put the dumbest man alive in charge of the country.
 
At least Trump has reversed his position on this one. Biden is the one who signed it so the onus is on him in the end.
 
Maybe a question for @Cmaier but this was passed by both houses of congress and then signed into law by the president, all checks and balances covered. How can the SCOTUS supersede that? Really just trying to understand the point of all that effort if you can just leave it in the hands of 8 appointed justices anyway.
 
Eric said:
Maybe a question for @Cmaier but this was passed by both houses of congress and then signed into law by the president, all checks and balances covered. How can the SCOTUS supersede that? Really just trying to understand the point of all that effort if you can just leave it in the hands of 8 appointed justices anyway.
Click to expand...

That is the purpose of SCOTUS, to make sure laws passed are constitutional. In this case, they decided the law that was passed didn't conflict with the Constitution and is OK.
 
Herdfan said:
That is the purpose of SCOTUS, to make sure laws passed are constitutional. In this case, they decided the law that was passed didn't conflict with the Constitution and is OK.
Click to expand...
Right, so then what is the point of Congress even taking it up then? If the SCOTUS has the final say then just leave it to them. Technically speaking, Congress also amends the constitution but none of that matters if the 8 justices choose to take it up and overturn it.

The power they wield as unelected officials is ridiculous and undermines democracy as a whole.
 
Eric said:
Right, so then what is the point of Congress even taking it up then? If the SCOTUS has the final say then just leave it to them. Technically speaking, Congress also amends the constitution but none of that matters if the 8 justices choose to take it up and overturn it.

The power they wield as unelected officials is ridiculous and undermines democracy as a whole.
Click to expand...
Also, where in the Constitution does it say that a President is above the law? Immunity indeed.
 
Eric said:
Maybe a question for @Cmaier but this was passed by both houses of congress and then signed into law by the president, all checks and balances covered. How can the SCOTUS supersede that? Really just trying to understand the point of all that effort if you can just leave it in the hands of 8 appointed justices anyway.
Click to expand...
The argument was that the law was unconstitutional as violative of the First Amendment. To the extent that the rationale for the law was to prevent a U.S. entity from echoing China’s speech, that might have been true. But there were other justifications for the law, and the Supreme Court ruled properly.
 
Herdfan said:
That is the purpose of SCOTUS, to make sure laws passed are constitutional. In this case, they decided the law that was passed didn't conflict with the Constitution and is OK.
Click to expand...
Well… nowhere in the Constitution does it actually say that.

What happened is that the Supreme Court declared that it could declare things unconstitutional (Marbury v. Madison, 1803). So all you folks who claim to be Constitutionalists or Originalists, think about the fact that the Supreme Court never even thought it has such power until 20 years after the Constitution was signed.
 
Back
Top