People coping about the justices interrogating the state, they’re supposed to do that in a case that hinges on the first amendment and a government move to carve out an exception to it so of course they’re going to do that.

It doesn’t mean they won’t ultimately side with the state (they almost certainly will and ban Tiktok), just that they need to feel out a rationale they can write an opinion around that doesn’t too endanger the important rights of the bourgeoisie and corporations and upholds the facade that they’re independent and doing complex legal reasoning on some sort of solid ground. To write that rationale they need to probe the government side of things, get arguments, push back on weak points they don’t feel are a good idea to build precedent around, feel out the edges for how they’ll carve this out in case-law, that kind of thing.

If anything the fact they seemed uninterested in Tiktok’s side of things is a bad sign for Tiktok because they’re not interested in feeling out the implications of upholding their side of things, they’re feeling out the implications and limits of upholding the government’s side. Now could they still turn around and side with Tiktok? Possible if they feel there’s no way to gut Tiktok without doing harm to capitalist interests writ large but that shouldn’t be an issue is they can just issue a special one-time-only, totally not precedent ruling that based on classified evidence, blah, blah, blah this time they’ll allow it.