Jump to content

Clinton Judge Rules Banning TikTok is “Anti-Chinese”


WestVirginiaRebel

Recommended Posts

WestVirginiaRebel
Front Page

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?

________

Democrats do love their Chinese...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1713483226
×
×
  • Create New...