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

quote:

---

Sure. That's literally irrelevant, though.

---

With respect to whether or not this about viewpoint differences?

quote:

---

So everyone is guilty except the team with the security clearances and paying for shite.

---

Flailing

[ x ] Engaged
[__] Disengaged

If you want some irony, had the Trump admin been smarter, citing the FEC violation would have given them a lot more weight in this argument, due to the dishonesty and violation of law. But they love to step on their dick and do things the wrong and/or inefficient way.

quote:

---

With respect to whether or not this about viewpoint differences?

---

Correct.

quote:

---

Correct.

---

Why can't this be about unethical behavior instead of viewpoint differences?

quote:

---

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

---

This is ridiculous.

So I guess you think it would be unconstitutional to revoke a communists security clearance because of viewpoint?

quote:

---

I don't understand why you have issues with me calling these out in real time to keep the discussion focused on reality and what people are actually arguing.

---

You derailed the thread immediately by rejecting the premise that the executive order revolved around security clearances. That's not keeping anything focused.

Instead, you take the position that any retaliation because of political viewpoints is unconstitutional. Which is an interesting position, and in some contexts may be considered appropriate.

the problem I have with this argument comes from the judge:

quote:

---

Perkins Coie, Howell wrote, is neither employed by the government nor a contractor with it, but is instead a "law firm representing some clients disliked by the president, engaging in some litigation seeking results disliked by the president, and operating its business, in part, in a manner disliked by the president."

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but the judge literally just said that this firm has no business with the federal government.

We simply cannot take this conversation further without taking a step back and asking "is their a valid reason to issue security clearance, who requires a security clearance, and who is responsible for maintaining the cleared individuals?"

You basically said that it was "retarded" to have this discussion as your entry into the thread. How can you not discuss this?

So I reject the idea that you are trying to keep the discussion focused, unless you meant that you are trying to keep it focused on you.

Flailing, irrelevant!

quote:

---

So I guess you think it would be unconstitutional to revoke a communists security clearance because of viewpoint?

---

I brought that up he ignored it.

quote:

---

That's an entirely different discussion

---

Nope, it's a realistic alternative to viewpoint differences.

quote:

---

You derailed the thread immediately

---

I did not.

quote:

---

by rejecting the premise that the executive order revolved around security clearances.

---

This did not happen.

quote:

---

you take the position that any retaliation because of political viewpoints is unconstitutional.

---

This is a straw man. I've made no such expansive claims.

quote:

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but the judge literally just said that this firm has no business with the federal government.

---

Not necessarily. Employment and contractor have legal meanings and I'm assuming the judge was using these specific meanings.

If I am hired by a business to do legal work for them, I'm not a "contractor" of the business, within the legal definition. On the opposite end, if that business hires me as in-house counsel, I'm an employee of the business.

quote:

---

We simply cannot take this conversation further without taking a step back and asking "is their a valid reason to issue security clearance, who requires a security clearance, and who is responsible for maintaining the cleared individuals?"

---

Those questions aren't really important.

The question is if the denial of a security clearance is based in viewpoint discrimination.

quote:

---

You basically said that it was "retarded" to have this discussion as your entry into the thread.

---

No. I specifically quoted this:

quote:

---

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

---

And told him not to be retarded (after he used the word earlier, if you didn't notice. It was intentional).

That quote has almost nothing to do with this

quote:

---

We simply cannot take this conversation further without taking a step back and asking "is their a valid reason to issue security clearance, who requires a security clearance, and who is responsible for maintaining the cleared individuals?"

---

I know this may annoy you, but that's a textbook strawman.

quote:

---

So I reject the idea that you are trying to keep the discussion focused, unless you meant that you are trying to keep it focused on you.

---

You do this after relying on a strawman to do so