>> What is the point of these "rules and regulations" and "the nation's highest court" when the president could decide just not to enforce them?

What is the point of freedom of speech and freedom of press when we can just shut down any apps not touting the mono-party lines?

people in the us finally found a real public square to talk, and it is being shut down against the spirit of everything the US purports to stand for.

> What is the point of freedom of speech and freedom of press when we can just shut down any apps not touting the mono-party lines?

I agree with you, and wouldn't agree with a TikTok ban either if it affected me.

But how does that change anything about what I wrote?

Where was this line of thinking when it was Obama ordering the DEA to not enforce marijuana laws? Where is this line of thinking when it's a city that chooses not to enforce dog breed restrictions?

The enforcement of law being separate from the passage of law is a key plank in a functioning democracy, it's one of the safety valves against tyranny.

I doubt those events made it to HN, and the questions are obviously from people outside the US who thought that 'Supreme' means 'Supreme'.

Trump has a history of accepting bribes. Past history with this is very relevant. Let me know if Cleveland mayor is accepting bribes for pitbulls.

While I find it entirely plausible that Trump's character is such that he might accept bribes I am aware of no credible evidence that he has ever done so.

Companies spending a lot of money at a Trump property then being granted contracts or favorable legislation is a bribe in my eyes.

The president is in charge of executing the law. It’s in our system of checks and balances. I’m choosing to speak at an extremely general level, of course, but that is the answer to your question.

Specifically, I think it's "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Art. II, §3).

Does that mean "If foreign companies don't like our laws, they can pay to have them adjusted"? Seems not very faithful, but I hardly understand that word anymore it feels like.

From your second line, the answer is mostly no. Why are you assuming otherwise? Who is paying what to who?

Edit for anyone confused:

GP comment changed significantly (for the better).

It means whatever SCOTUS decides it means, unless and until they decide otherwise.

So can Trump legally ignore this SCOTUS or not? :)

The president can just not enforce a law.

Why are they called laws then? :)

Does the US have a different definition for everything?

The US has 3 different branches. The president is the head of one of the branches called the executive branch, which is the branch that enforces the law. Every president, at least in modern times, selectively chooses when they enforce laws and how severely they enforce the law. The DOJ, department of justice, is part of the executive branch and is involved with such matters.

The selective enforcement of laws is a hot button issue and both sides accuse the other of doing it. (Both sides do it all the time).

As far as I know, every country has similar issues. I constantly see articles where people are allegedly being prosecuted because they are on the opposite side of the government leadership while also seeing articles claiming they let their own side off.

I mean, SCOTUS also decided nothing a sitting President does in their official capacity while in office can be considered a crime even if it breaks the law so yeah.

The logic behind such a ruling is nonsensical. Imagine if a president, in his/her official capacity, started murdering political rivals. In other countries, that's considered a dictatorship and should be stopped. But in America, that's completely legal according to SCOTUS. In fact, that was one of the questions asked by the justices!

Apparently, committing crimes with absolute immunity is a necessary part of the presidential office. Without such protections, they'd be afraid to do things like extrajudicial drone strikes (Obama) and internment camps (FDR). Oh, wait.

I hate to "Poe's Law" this tangent, but most people forget that Hitler's rise to power was also completely legal. Just change the constitution and get the judiciary to side with you, and you can do anything. It's terrifying.

> What is the point of these "rules and regulations" and "the nation's highest court" when the president could decide just not to enforce them?

Good question actually.

This is largely a non-starter, though? He can't choose to have it not be a law, he could choose to selectively enforce it. Where selective enforcement is assumed to be no enforcement from your post. But he could, as easily, use it to punish any company he doesn't like that is somehow in breach of it.

And this ultimately puts it in a place where you have to assume that it will be enforced against you. Right?

This isn't a new problem.

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

From what I've heard, not enforcing the ban doesn't really work. Apple/Google would be liable if the law does get enforced. So unless they've gone completely insane and want to give Trump a threat to wield over them for his whole term, they'll surely act as if it's being enforced. The term on the law is 5 years too, so even if they do have perfect trust in Trump never changing his mind, they have to worry about the next President deciding to enforce it too.

> Ah, clever to leave it up for bribes from ByteDance.

I agree. And the bribery already started when the Trump campaign found itself doing very well on engagement in TikTok. The CCP had already started the bribery before the election in a bid to maintain influence over the US while halting American influence in China.

The Biden administration I believe said they won't enforce the law starting Sunday, leaving it to the incoming administration to enforce. It'll be wildly popular for Trump to save TikTok, so I expect he'll do it without forcing a sale.

> Ah, clever to leave it up for bribes from ByteDance.

News story from yesterday, "TikTok CEO expected to attend Trump inauguration as ban looms":

* https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/...

Veering off-topic but I don't understand how there isn't wide-spread protests/riots right now in the US. Is the working/middle class just accepting all of this, even when it's apparent the government is being sold for quick cash?

They can't afford not to accept it, honestly. They need to work so they don't die.

"A 2023 survey conducted by Payroll.org highlighted that 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck" "71.93% of Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck Have $2,000 or Less in Savings" https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-pa...

they think they are going to get cheap eggs and bacon

Massive propaganda. Bannon has been brought in line and has fully recanted after his comments about Musk:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/14/bannon-second-trump...

A couple of Trump forums focus on distractions like the California fires and delete comments about working class rights. The same forums that were full of workers' rights just until before the election.

Breitbart has nothing on immigration and displacement of US workers. It celebrates the (alleged, Trump claims a lot) phone call between Trump and Xi.

So unless the MAGA crowd goes to the capitol to protest against Trump this time, you won't hear anything anywhere.

Incredible stuff, really.