Comment by firesteelrain
17 hours ago
I suggest you read the full 27 page ruling and what I quoted again. Supreme Court doesn’t weigh on the wisdom. But found enough evidence that TikTok does not refute that showed that they were engaging in the conduct that Congress alleged and that the law is not unconstitutional.
The question is if the new law was necessary, if there is case that to be made TikTok has violated other existing law, but government merely has to prove so?
Was government trying to take a shortcut to a TikTok ban which could have been achieved through current law but which needs greater burden of proof/evidence from government.
Did SCOTUS go into the question of the need for such a law considering all other laws which might apply in the situation, just so that government can achieve the same ban without having to prove that TikTok has broken an applicable law.
Existing laws do not adequately address the specific national security concerns
Supreme Court upheld PAFACA as a necessary and constitutionally required measure.