Judge Beryl Howell goes all in blocks another Trump EO - Perkins Coie

quote:

---

While four firms have sought to fight Mr. Trump's executive orders targeting them in court, at least nine others have reached agreements with the White House to avoid being penalized by the president. The deals, announced by Mr. Trump on social media, include commitments to provide between $40 million and $125 million in pro bono legal work.

---

So the Clinton’s lawyers hate poor people?

quote:

---

This is so ridiculously unconstitutional.

---

Absolutely. This EO is clearly viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the First Amendment.

We don't have to follow judges who order the nation to commit suicide.

quote:

---

quote:
This is so ridiculously unconstitutional.


Absolutely. This EO is clearly viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the First Amendment.

---

So... you're retarded

quote:

---

So... you're retarded

---

No, I understand how the first amendment works. This is the federal government imposing a penalty on another party based on the viewpoint they held. That is unconstitutional any day. This is not even close.

The holding of a security clearance is a freedom of speech issue?

quote:

---

SCOTUS is gonna fix this any day now, right...

---

“No standing”

quote:

---

The holding of a security clearance is a freedom of speech issue?

---

If/when the government engages in discrimination based on viewpoints it becomes one.

Free Speech Center - Viewpoint Discrimination

quote:

---

Viewpoint discrimination is a form of content discrimination particularly disfavored by the courts. When the government engages in content discrimination, it is restricting speech on a given subject matter. When it engages in viewpoint discrimination, it is singling out a particular opinion or perspective on that subject matter for treatment unlike that given to other viewpoints.

For example, if an ordinance banned all speech on the Iraq War, it would be a content-based regulation. But if the ordinance banned only speech that criticized the war, it would be a viewpoint-based regulation.

Because the government is essentially taking sides in a debate when it engages in viewpoint discrimination, the Supreme Court has held viewpoint-based restrictions to be especially offensive to the First Amendment. Such restrictions are treated as presumptively

---

Congress.gov article on it

quote:

---

Content-based regulation of speech is generally subject to strict scrutiny and presumptively unconstitutional.1 The Supreme Court considers viewpoint-based regulation of speech to be an egregious form of content discrimination.2 A law3 is viewpoint-based when it regulates speech based on its specific motivating ideology or the speaker’s opinion or perspective.4 The following general principles have emerged from the Supreme Court’s decisions on viewpoint discrimination and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

---

quote:

---

Second, the government generally may not compel a private party to espouse a particular viewpoint.11 This principle extends to compelled association12 and compelled subsidization of speech.13

Third, laws that do not single out a specific viewpoint on their face, but that were enacted for the purpose of suppressing an idea or message, or otherwise invite discriminatory enforcement, sometimes run afoul of the First Amendment as well.14

---

quote:

---

I don't see security clearance anywhere in the 1st Amendment.

---

Don't be retarded

None of what you posted has anything to do with the security clearance issue.

The Executive has unfettered discretion in this regard. The granting, withholding and revoking of a clearance is by its nature discriminatory and arbitrary.