|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The current crop of Biden judicial nominees makes for entertaining viewing when Sen. Ted Cruz or Sen. John Kennedy asks them a basic question about the law, and they look like drunk drivers asked to recite the alphabet backward in Greek. Still there are some old school Dem nominees who are not just horrendously leftist, but also horrendously stupid.
One of them has been mostly obscure, but he figured out how to get some attention.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy said Montana’s TikTok ban “oversteps state power” and “likely violates the First Amendment.”
There’s no First Amendment right for a Chinese company to operate in the United States. If shutting down a company violates the First Amendment, then virtually every state and federal action is unconstitutional. I know some libertarians would like that, not sure Democrats or Molloy have thought that through.
But Judge Donald Molloy is probably one of the dumbest Clinton appointees on the bench.
Molloy wrote that though officials in Montana have defended the law as an attempt to protect consumers in the state, there is “little doubt that Montana’s legislature and Attorney General were more interested in targeting China’s ostensible role in TikTok than with protecting Montana consumers,” the judge wrote.
Considering that China’s role in TikTok hurts Montana consumers, there’s no contradiction here. And calling China’s role in Tiktok “ostensible” shows that Molloy either doesn’t know what the word means or is unfamiliar with the company.
Montana, as a state, does not have authority over foreign affairs, Molloy said, but even still, he found the national security case presented against TikTok unconvincing, writing that if anything the Montana law had a “pervasive undertone of anti-Chinese sentiment.”
Montana doesn’t need authority over foreign affairs to regulate a company operating in the state. If regulating a foreign company means that a state is interfering in foreign affairs, states will have no authority over foreign companies.
Again, has Molloy considered the precedent that his idiotic ruling is setting?
Calling this a ruling is flattering, this is a USA Today op-ed.
He said state officials justified the Montana ban under a “paternalistic argument.”
And? Is there a ban on states regulating things based on “paternalistic arguments?” (maybe there should be, but there isn’t). These aren’t legal arguments, they’re Twitter arguments. Judicial review had better have a compelling reason to override laws put into place by legally elected officials.
Lately, judges have taken to overriding laws based on the flimsiest of reasons, and Molloy has taken flimsiness to a new level. His legal reasoning amounts to “I don’t like it.” And claiming that Montana can’t ban a foreign company from operating in the state because that’s “anti-Chinese” is borderline treasonous.
If you’re not sure that social media in general has been detrimental to the intricate fabric of our society, look no further than the whole cloth of this ignorant judge’s statement. I’m sure that will be misunderstood and I’ll be labelled an old geezer (which I am, btw) and while obviously good things have come from what we have labelled “social media”, so too is a brief bout of diarrhea good for cleansing the digestive tract. I hold them both in the same regard.
Every time a conservative mentions something they’ve seen on Tik-Tok, I fight the urge to strangle them and inwardly question their definition of conservatism. I had nearly 60,000 followers on Twitter/X before I realized the futility of the endeavor. Even under Musk, thought is being throttled and suppressed.
The sharing of free, independent thought on the large stage is dead. Frankly, I’m not sure if it ever was alive…but if it was, San Francisco leftists and these apps killed it, while the Chinese monitor Tik-Tok trends so as to further subvert it and us. If this were not so, the Tik-Tok “clock” would’ve been broken before it was ever wound.
“….while obviously good things have come from what we have labelled “social media”, so too is a brief bout of diarrhea good for cleansing the digestive tract. I hold them both in the same regard.”
Oh man, that’s funny. Also quite true.
Foreign Policy issues should not be a matter of the political left or right. Otherwise, the national security of the United States will be imperiled. A nation exists because they are able to speak with one voice through their leaders. It is high time the radical right political leaders are also called to order. Judges do not make law, they interpret the law. It is the law makers or the Congress who need to sit to provide essential guardrails.
A plethora of Marxist and incredibly stupid judges must be eliminated from their posts. They a terminal danger to every conservative in the USA
A little nit. It’s not borderline treasonous. The definition of treason is spelled out very specifically in the Constitution. This ruling is borderline seditious.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN SHOWED THEM ALL HOW TO SERVE RED CHINA, GET FILTHY RICH AND STAY OUT OF PRISON! Just syphon the bribes through family members, such as Mr Feinstein, aka, Richard Blum.
The same program has worked well for Biden and Hunter and Nancy Pelosi and her son,
The following was excerpted from Peter Schweizer’s #1 New York Times bestselling book Red-Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win.
The nuts are still falling and its almost winter
I sure hope the relevant authorities in Montana ignore Malloy’s illegal ruling.
A Judge does not make illegal rulings since they can only make rulings based upon existing laws and the constitution. Hence, rulings can be appealed!
Ignoring court rulings undermines the rule of law 🤣
Oh, okay so ignoring unconstitutional rulings undermines the rule of law? So I suppose that would have been the priority for you during acts of civil disobedience in the 60s?
What does robotic adherence to unconstitutional legislation undermine, O Odious?