11 ms·
Despite my own feelings on the ban, this kind of royal court politics is the worst potential outcome. Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majorit
by bearcobra 2y ago
Despite my own feelings on the ban, this kind of royal court politics is the worst potential outcome. Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority, signed into law by the president and ruled on by the supreme courts feels like the start of a very dangerous path. Not to mention the prosecutorial discretion may be creating massive liability that the new administration could use to extract favors from some of our largest tech companies.
- slg 2y ago>Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority, signed into law by the president and ruled on by the supreme courts feels like the start of a very dangerous path I don't understand why this is not the primary takeaway. Regardless of the specifics of this issue, it is objectively a huge power grab for a president to vow to not enforce a law that had bipartisan approval of both the legislative and judiciary branches.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ternnoburn 2y agoThe law has a provision permitting the President to grant 90 day exceptions. Trump has indicated he'll sign one tomorrow. This isn't going around the law, it's just the law as written. We can debate whether the law was good or bad, but this is an outcome the law directly supports.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> law has a provision permitting the President to grant 90 day exceptions “A 1-time extension of not more than 90 days,” § 2(A)(3) [1]. [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17758.pdf#page=63 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17...
- ternnoburn 2y agoYep! Thanks for finding the source. I was on my phone, couldn't get the actual text.
- rayiner 2y agoThat requires a legal agreement to divest to be in place, which I suspect isn’t the case yet. That being said, the law is enforceable today and Biden said he won’t enforce it.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago> That requires a legal agreement to divest to be in place, which I suspect isn’t the case yet. Nope, it merely requires that the president certifies that it is in place, and that's something entirely different given who the president will be.
- foobarbecue 2y agoExcept it doesn't sound like he's satisfied any of the criteria, unless he's promising to buy it himself: (A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application; (B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and (C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agree- ments to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension
- redcobra762 2y agoThose are criteria the President has to certify are the case, not criteria that have to be the case. Zero clue how that would play out in the courts, but it wouldn't resolve in anything resembling a timely manner.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoHis administration will lie, because TikTok has made it clear they will not divest in order to stay in the USA. But so what? His administration, and he himself, lied about a bunch of stuff during his previous term, and what happened? Nothing. Never tried, never convicted (he was impeached, but so what?) We do not have a mechanism for dealing with a president or administration that is willing to just lie. Even if the SCOTUS were to determine that the administration did in fact lie about certifying those things, so what? Nothing will happen.
- kelnos 2y agoThe president can grant one 90-day exception, if certain conditions are met. Those conditions have not been met.
- soerxpso 2y ago[flagged]
- jiggawatts 2y ago[flagged]
- sethammons 2y agoMy read says the law itself is a presidential power, doesn't have to be pushed unless the President wants it
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- llamaimperative 2y agoThere is no way the President can commit that these services will not accrue massive fines throughout his non-enforcement period. And actually your read is wrong: the President does have an obligation to enforce laws, it's just in practice there are all sorts of ways one can effectively bury this obligation under claims of different prioritization. They are not really allowed to come out and just say: "I am choosing not to enforce this law because I disagree with it."
- reubenmorais 2y ago> the President does have an obligation to enforce laws This is only true as far as other people are ready to keep the president in check. I only have the surface knowledge of US politics, but from the outside, it seems like the American institutions that were supposed to balance the executive power are all being quite successfully sabotaged.
- llamaimperative 2y agoThat's a different argument than the one GP made. One of the things that makes it more difficult to enforce those obligations is people's mistaken belief that those obligations do not exist. So when people say those obligations don't exist, they should be told they are wrong.
- reubenmorais 2y agoFair enough.
- 2y ago
- rayiner 2y ago[flagged]
- wonnage 2y agoThat would likely be a breach of separation of powers. Relevant reading: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43708 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43708 The executive branch tends to have power of discretion in what to enforce and how.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> executive branch tends to have power of discretion in what to enforce and how No, it doesn’t. Plenty of lawsuits are around laws not being adequately enforced (and courts forcing such enforcement).
- lokar 2y agoThe president takes an oath to see that the laws are enforced
- ModernMech 2y agoSerious question, how does that compel the president to enforce laws?
- lokar 2y agoYou would need some party with standing to ask a court to intervene
- ModernMech 2y agoBut say through some process a court intervenes. There's no actual way for the court to compel him to do anything.
- remarkEon 2y ago>I don't understand why this is not the primary takeaway. Because this takeaway is wrong.
- cluckindan 2y agoYeah, Trump himself signed the executive order to ban TikTok.
- bboygravity 2y agoTrump is not in power now.
- rvense 2y agoPower is when people do what you say.
- cluckindan 2y agoHe did it in 2020?
- nordsieck 2y ago> Regardless of the specifics of this issue, it is objectively a huge power grab for a president to vow to not enforce a law that had bipartisan approval of both the legislative and judiciary branches. Isn't that the road we've been walking down for a while now with the proliferation of executive orders? I'm not a fan of this outcome either, but it doesn't strike me as a revolutionary departure from current norms.
- bearcobra 2y agoI think this is different. I generally feel like executive orders are 1) used to take some kind of affirmative step that the dysfunction in congress is blocking 2) have some level of defensible legal theory. This feels like the opposite. My understanding of the 90 day extension is that it's supposed to be there to allow a deal to close, but there is no evidence I've seen of a deal being worked on so the legal theory seems to be really flimsy. Disregarding a law, while not unprecedented, is not a great sign given some of the incoming administration statements on a ton of other topics.
- slg 2y ago>My understanding of the 90 day extension is that it's supposed to be there to allow a deal to close It is also important to recognize that Trump isn't just talking about invoking the 90 day extension. He is promising companies they won't be held responsible for the fines they should be accruing for violating the law before he even takes office.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 2y agoBiden is still the president and he’s not enforcing the law. It’s not clear to me that the president can’t grant an extension later once all the statutory requirements are met. What’s the difference between one day and say 10 days? Putting that aside, the legal theory here—where an exception is there for this purpose and we’re quibbling about its application—is nowhere close to “flimsy” when it comes to constraints on executive prosecutorial discretion.
- incognition 2y agoLet me introduce you to Andrew Jackson
- kelipso 2y agoThe executive branch has the power to decide whether or not to enforce a law. For example, see weed laws not being enforced.
- jmyeet 2y agoThis should be a lesson: most prosecution and enforcement is discretionary. This isn't a power grab. That already happened when the Supreme Court invented out of thin air the idea of presidential immunity. There was no basis for that. Supreme Court justices are political operatives and the conservative supermajority has gone on a spree of overturning precedent and inventing law on a scale not seen since Marbury v Madison. “Historical tradition” as a legal doctrine is completely invented. “Major Questions Doctrine” is a massive power grab over the other two branches. Presidential immunity is simply the “unitary executive” doctrine, also completely invented. We already have a dictator.
- gnkyfrg 2y ago[dead]
- BeFlatXIII 2y agoIt's a potentially successful power grab because the law isn't widely supported by the populace. Trivial to say "those eggheads can pass what they like, I will protect you from them"
- ikiris 2y agoHow do you figure? The explicit domain of enforcement is the executive branch, so if the new guy coming in says something akin to "They've made their decision, let them enforce it" that's somewhat by design even if you may not agree with it. The system was designed with these checks and balances in mind explicitly.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> if the new guy coming in says something akin to "They've made their decision, let them enforce it" that's somewhat by design even if you may not agree with it It’s absolutely not. Which is why non-enforcement doesn’t release liability; if you break a law that the President declines to enforce, people can sue the government to force enforcement today and the next President can enforce tomorrow.
- llamaimperative 2y agoAnd in this case they'll just accrue (massive) fines.
- ajmurmann 2y agoThe ultimate consequence of that interpretation would mean that the executive does whatever it wants since all enforcement of court rulings or laws fall to the executive.
- ikiris 2y agoYes, this is how government works if the judicial + legislative branches have no enforcement power. That is not at all how this government works however. I suggest taking an American civics course if you want to learn more.
- pixl97 2y ago> how this government works however. I mean, with some of the decisions by SCOTUS in the last few years we should really be at the point of "This government works?"
- intended 2y ago>feels like the start of a very dangerous path Start?
- davidw 2y agoI'm old enough to remember how things used to be and it sure wasn't perfect, but JFC is it bad now.
- zouhair 2y agoOh yeah, the good old segregation times.
- justatdotin 2y agoreally? cos I feel old, but as far back as I remember usa's vaunted democratic institutions have been a sideshow while the wealthy favour global militarist domination over the needs of ordinary american people. when did you decide that things went bad?
- davidw 2y agoLet's see: SC decision that presidents are above the law. Violent assault on the Capitol. Journalism imploding.
- justatdotin 2y agoOK. I'm looking for a year. I think the SC decision was last year, whereas the capitol riot was 4 yrs ago. sorry, I don't know a date for 'journalism imploding', but I'm guessing you mean 2016? so you think the WMD lies were before things turned bad?
- intended 2y agoI’ve personally harped on the failure of globalization since the 1990s, before it was cool. Nothing has been this bad. But perhaps I’m wrong. Could you point out how today is the same as before?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hot_gril 2y agoThe actual bad precedent set here is that the US executive branch has the authority to censor the media.
- tomtomtom777 2y agoThat is incorrect in this case. The "censoring" was done by the legislative branch, congress. The "uncensoring" is done by the executive branch.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hot_gril 2y agoIt's both. It gives the President the authority to designate an app as controlled by a foreign adversary, forcing it to be banned or sold. It also names TikTok in particular. I didn't know about the second part until I read the original text* just now, since every summary missed that, but I'm not happy about that part either. * https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...
- hot_gril 2y agoTo clarify, the law bans TikTok and also lets the president ban other apps in the future.
- myko 2y ago> The "uncensoring" is done by the executive branch. Interestingly, the executive branch is still under Joe Biden at the moment. TikTok content has changed in tone and tenor since President-Elect trump's policy reversal. Looks like he'll have ByteDance working for him like he did Russian fake news during his last regime.
- LeafItAlone 2y agoThat’s actually the exact opposite of what has happened.
- maxerickson 2y agoMechanistically, the law applies to the app, not the service. It's not clear to me that serving videos to users that already have the app is a violation of the law.
- lokar 2y agoIt also applies to their cloud providers
- maxerickson 2y agoYeah, a.1.B, (B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States. Is distributing content an "update"?
- warner25 2y agoYes, and what's even worse to me is Trump's explicit motivation for supporting TikTok now. Like there are some interesting philosophical, moral, and maybe legal arguments against the TikTok ban but what he's seized on is simply that TikTok was a useful tool (as far as he's been told) for gaining votes. Keeping it around just benefits him politically and personally, so that's it.
- ClumsyPilot 2y agoYou know what, that’s is actually correct. Practically necessarily trumps concerns of fictitious and imaginary constructs
- konschubert 2y agoThat’s how all dictatorships work. Everything is illegal. You live by the KING.
- mullingitover 2y ago> Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority It was a rider tacked onto a must-pass bill. There’s nothing about the manner it was passed that makes it special or particularly blessed. This was classic congressional sausage-making.
- LZ_Khan 2y agoAnd yet the law is the law. There's no premise that says the manner in which a law is passed determines its enforceability.
- mullingitover 2y agoAlso nothing saying that it will be enforced at all as long as the bribes are deposited on time.
- afiori 2y agoSorry but this argument does not make sense, AFAIK this extension is lawful and explicitly permitted by the same law, so the law was followed any way. Or are you saying that the public perception of the law should itself be the law?
- LZ_Khan 2y agoI'm not saying the extension is unlawful. The person I replied to seemed to imply an addendum to a law should be less enforceable than the primary focus of the law. I was simply addressing that statement.
- mullingitover 2y agoI didn’t say it was unenforceable, just pointing it there’s nothing special about which parties voted for it out by how much. But also at the end of the day the executive branch has sole power to enforce it or not, and if the president doesn’t want to enforce it there’s really nothing Congress or the courts can do about it other than impeaching him, which realistically won’t happen. The two parties have captured the system of three-way checks and balances, and a cult of personality has captured the party with trifecta power. That’s the game, folks. We live in an autocracy now.
- tim333 2y agoOnly four more years of this stuff to go. In other news Trump coin has plummeted by a few billion as Melania launched her own meme coin with a ~4bn market cap.
- tzs 2y ago> Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority I wonder if there was actually a bipartisan majority in favor of getting rid of TikTok? Yes, the bill passed by a bipartisan majority, but TikTok was not the only thing in that bill. Previous attempts to advance a standalone TikTok bill had failed to get majority support. This time it got attached to a bill that provided $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, $26 billion in aid for Israel, and $1 billion of additional humanitarian assistance for food, medical supplies, and clean water for Gaza. There was also $8 billion for security in Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific. A lot of Congress considered that aid (or parts of it) to be critical, and it had taken a lot of time to get there. I bet as a result of that a lot of Congress members would vote "yes" even if they disagreed with the TikTok part. When Biden signed it he spoke about the importance of all the aid provisions and didn't mention TikTok at all.
- sanderjd 2y agoThe executive order will just be baldly illegal, and what happens in the litigation on it is the next battle. TikTok is, as we speak, breaking US law.
- Karrot_Kream 2y agoNo there's an actual provision in the law that allows the President to delay enforcement one-time for 90 days: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text#HF58A3513596C4ECA9863FB2565FDF872 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521... . This was an explicit provision of the bill.
- sanderjd 2y agoThe provision requires the president to tell congress that a deal is in the works. Either the executive order makes no such claim and is unlawful, or there really is a deal in the works, or the president is unlawfully making an untrue claim. There is likely to be no punishment for either of those unlawful outcomes, but they are still unlawful.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Jare 2y ago> Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority, signed into law by the president and ruled on by the supreme courts feels like the start of a very dangerous path The very dangerous path started a long time ago, or at least that's how it feels from abroad. "He can't" followed by "He wouldn't" then "He did".
- afiori 2y agoIMHO this is the reason things should be laws not weird tradition and conventions if they really matter, (same reason that the fault of things like SCOTUS upturning Roe v Wade is in Congress for never making it a law instead of just a precedent
- encoderer 2y agoThe law specifically gives the president a 90 day extension.
- jameshart 2y agoWe are watching the norm be created that ‘what apps we are allowed to use’ is something that is in the personal gift of Donald Trump. That is a very weird precedent for us to be setting.
- Zak 2y agoI won't argue against the idea that Trump is on a dangerous political path based around patronage and personal favors, but the law does grant him the authority to give TikTok a 90 day extension. If TikTok has not sold by then and he fails to enforce the law, that's a bigger problem.
- gnkyfrg 2y ago[dead]
- gnkyfrg 2y ago[dead]
- maeil 2y ago> feels like the start of a very dangerous path. I'm baffled people keep saying this. You're miles down the dangerous path - you've almost reached the end of it. This is nothing new.