4 ms·

Why would any American court side not be partial to the US here? They're literally suing the US in its own courthouse.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
godzillabrennus 6y ago
The US Government is not a monolithic organization. Different parts fight with other parts. Happens all the time here. If it’s done right we call this checks and balances. If it’s done wrong we have lots of other names for it.
- Hydraulix989 6y ago
  The US Government isn't fighting with any part of the US though -- in this case -- they are fighting a foreign actor (that is quite possibly an adversary).
teknopaul 6y ago
Its technically possible that a court of law is not corrupt. Even in the US.
- Scarbutt 6y ago
  It's not corruption that is the problem in this case but fear.
  - gruez 6y ago
    of what? The CIA renditioning them?
    - Scarbutt 6y ago
      Sure. A judge may fear dealing with the consequences(to him and to his family) for "siding" with a company from a foreign rival country, in case this company claims are valid and should be granted whatever they are requesting.
      - jaywalk 6y ago
        A judge may also fear a Chinese assassin if the reverse happened, but enough with the fairy tales.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        This is ridiculous. This is not how US courts work. The US government does not go after a judges family if they make the "wrong" ruling.
        aaomidi 6y ago
        Well they do go after congress people: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cia-interrogations/cia-accused-of-spying-on-u-s-senate-intelligence-committee-idUSBREA2A0XY20140311 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cia-interrogations/ci... I'm pretty sure there are cases of them going after the judicial branch as well, i'll just have to look for it again.
  - liability 6y ago
    If American judges are being threatened by the executive branch, that seems a severe form of corruption to me. It also seems unlikely in common scenarios.
    - Scarbutt 6y ago
      I guess is debatable whether the judge should be called corrupt or not.
      - liability 6y ago
        In this scenario the judge would be a victim of the corruption. If they capitulated to the threats, they would then simultaneously be participants in and victims of the corruption. From what I understand it's common for participants in criminal organizations to be victimized by those same organizations, so this apparent contradiction isn't really unusual.
repiret 6y ago
One of the great things about the US legal system (although it's not uniquely American whatsoever) is that it's perfectly possible to prevail against the government in court, and happens on a regular basis. It is especially noteworthy that there is no single person or organization that has authority over both the federal court system and the Department of Commerce.
- Hydraulix989 6y ago
  Even if the counterparty is a foreign actor (with some demonstrable ties to a foreign government)?
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Yes
cortesoft 6y ago
The entire United States government system is designed to prevent any one part of it from accumulating too much power. This is known as the 'Separation of Powers'. The executive branch is not a dictatorship. Just because the executive branch of the government says 'tik tok is banned' doesn't mean that it is. You are allowed to challenge the decision in the judicial branch, which is what is happening here. This is not unusual, and it is also not unusual for the judicial branch to rule against the other branches of government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
minhazm 6y ago
That's how any criminal case goes also. A government attorney (prosecutor) is arguing on behalf of the government to a judge that also works for the government, and yet prosecutors lose all the time. The US has independent branches of government for a reason.
dqpb 6y ago
Courts basically have to follow a precedent or set a precedent. Setting a precedent is consequential. If this case results in setting a precedent that influences future international commerce, then it becomes a non-trivial deliberation. Being “partial to the US” might not be well defined in this case.
javert 6y ago
Trump's action in trying to ban TikTok is actually anti-American. a) It violates the rights of millions of American TikTok users. b) It violates the rights of thousands of Americans employed by TikTok. c) It violates the rights of American investors in ByteDance d) It isn't a security threat---the Chinese don't care what teenagers have on their phones. Hopefully the courts will side with American rights and the rule of law, here. I think there is an argument that TikTok needs to be divested from Chinese in the long run. That was already the plan. However, that isn't what's happening now. Rather, Trump just said he would destroy the company in a short amount of time, creating a firesale (possibly to his friend Larry Ellison). This is property destruction, theft, and gangsterism.
- kube-system 6y ago
  How does the proposed US ban on transactions with TikTok violate users’ rights? Isn’t the application free? Also, there are many teenagers who are employed by the US government who are entrusted with state secrets, whom any foreign intelligence agency would love to surveil. I would guess that TikTok also has users that aren’t teenagers. The potentiality to steal state secrets over social media is not novel. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a32599593/beer-app-cia-tracking/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a32599593...
  - javert 6y ago
    > How does the proposed US ban on transactions with TikTok violate users’ rights? Isn’t the application free? I think Trump is threatening to eliminate the app from the app store. Anyway, the app can't really function with a transaction ban, because it generates revenue from advertisements. > Also, there are many teenagers who are employed by the US government who are entrusted with state secrets Members of the military, some federal employees, and the children of some federal employees (e.g. the children of diplomats, for instance) should be banned from using TikTok, out of an over-abundance of caution. My understanding is that this was already the policy (or at least, parts of it were) before Trump decided to destroy TikTok. Hard to see that you are making a genuine argument here. I mean, the fact that some teenagers are soldiers (for instance) does not begin to justify a blanket ban on the product.
madrox 6y ago
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. This is actually a really interesting question to ask.
- Hydraulix989 6y ago
  I don't mind "spending" karma on here to have interesting discussion and ask hard questions.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

The US Government is not a monolithic organization. Different parts fight with other parts. Happens all the time here. If it’s done right we call this checks and balances. If it’s done wrong we have lots of other names for it.

Hydraulix989 6y ago
The US Government isn't fighting with any part of the US though -- in this case -- they are fighting a foreign actor (that is quite possibly an adversary).

teknopaul 6y ago

Its technically possible that a court of law is not corrupt. Even in the US.

Scarbutt 6y ago
It's not corruption that is the problem in this case but fear.
- gruez 6y ago
  of what? The CIA renditioning them?
  - Scarbutt 6y ago
    Sure. A judge may fear dealing with the consequences(to him and to his family) for "siding" with a company from a foreign rival country, in case this company claims are valid and should be granted whatever they are requesting.
    - jaywalk 6y ago
      A judge may also fear a Chinese assassin if the reverse happened, but enough with the fairy tales.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      This is ridiculous. This is not how US courts work. The US government does not go after a judges family if they make the "wrong" ruling.
      - aaomidi 6y ago
        Well they do go after congress people: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cia-interrogations/cia-accused-of-spying-on-u-s-senate-intelligence-committee-idUSBREA2A0XY20140311 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cia-interrogations/ci... I'm pretty sure there are cases of them going after the judicial branch as well, i'll just have to look for it again.
- liability 6y ago
  If American judges are being threatened by the executive branch, that seems a severe form of corruption to me. It also seems unlikely in common scenarios.
  - Scarbutt 6y ago
    I guess is debatable whether the judge should be called corrupt or not.
    - liability 6y ago
      In this scenario the judge would be a victim of the corruption. If they capitulated to the threats, they would then simultaneously be participants in and victims of the corruption. From what I understand it's common for participants in criminal organizations to be victimized by those same organizations, so this apparent contradiction isn't really unusual.

repiret 6y ago

One of the great things about the US legal system (although it's not uniquely American whatsoever) is that it's perfectly possible to prevail against the government in court, and happens on a regular basis. It is especially noteworthy that there is no single person or organization that has authority over both the federal court system and the Department of Commerce.

Hydraulix989 6y ago
Even if the counterparty is a foreign actor (with some demonstrable ties to a foreign government)?
- kube-system 6y ago
  Yes

cortesoft 6y ago

The entire United States government system is designed to prevent any one part of it from accumulating too much power. This is known as the 'Separation of Powers'. The executive branch is not a dictatorship. Just because the executive branch of the government says 'tik tok is banned' doesn't mean that it is. You are allowed to challenge the decision in the judicial branch, which is what is happening here. This is not unusual, and it is also not unusual for the judicial branch to rule against the other branches of government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

minhazm 6y ago

That's how any criminal case goes also. A government attorney (prosecutor) is arguing on behalf of the government to a judge that also works for the government, and yet prosecutors lose all the time. The US has independent branches of government for a reason.

dqpb 6y ago

Courts basically have to follow a precedent or set a precedent. Setting a precedent is consequential. If this case results in setting a precedent that influences future international commerce, then it becomes a non-trivial deliberation. Being “partial to the US” might not be well defined in this case.

javert 6y ago

Trump's action in trying to ban TikTok is actually anti-American. a) It violates the rights of millions of American TikTok users. b) It violates the rights of thousands of Americans employed by TikTok. c) It violates the rights of American investors in ByteDance d) It isn't a security threat---the Chinese don't care what teenagers have on their phones. Hopefully the courts will side with American rights and the rule of law, here. I think there is an argument that TikTok needs to be divested from Chinese in the long run. That was already the plan. However, that isn't what's happening now. Rather, Trump just said he would destroy the company in a short amount of time, creating a firesale (possibly to his friend Larry Ellison). This is property destruction, theft, and gangsterism.

kube-system 6y ago
How does the proposed US ban on transactions with TikTok violate users’ rights? Isn’t the application free? Also, there are many teenagers who are employed by the US government who are entrusted with state secrets, whom any foreign intelligence agency would love to surveil. I would guess that TikTok also has users that aren’t teenagers. The potentiality to steal state secrets over social media is not novel. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a32599593/beer-app-cia-tracking/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a32599593...
- javert 6y ago
  > How does the proposed US ban on transactions with TikTok violate users’ rights? Isn’t the application free? I think Trump is threatening to eliminate the app from the app store. Anyway, the app can't really function with a transaction ban, because it generates revenue from advertisements. > Also, there are many teenagers who are employed by the US government who are entrusted with state secrets Members of the military, some federal employees, and the children of some federal employees (e.g. the children of diplomats, for instance) should be banned from using TikTok, out of an over-abundance of caution. My understanding is that this was already the policy (or at least, parts of it were) before Trump decided to destroy TikTok. Hard to see that you are making a genuine argument here. I mean, the fact that some teenagers are soldiers (for instance) does not begin to justify a blanket ban on the product.

madrox 6y ago

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. This is actually a really interesting question to ask.

Hydraulix989 6y ago
I don't mind "spending" karma on here to have interesting discussion and ask hard questions.