- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge Beryl Howell goes all in blocks another Trump EO - Perkins Coie
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The 1A is a limitation on government, including the admin. It's not about "taking away the firms rights". It's about ensuring the government acted within the limitations of the Constitution (1st Amendment, specifically).
On the basis that it was their "viewpoints" that prompted action by the government, rather than their actions, as the EO states.
It's factually incorrect, and this could be extend to a ridiculous degree. You cannot hide your actions behind viewpoints
2
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:35 pm to OceanMan
quote:Or hide payments for oppo research and code it as legal work and legal advice.
You cannot hide your actions behind viewpoints
Sound familiar?
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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.
Just pointing out again how stupid this is
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:40 pm to Jbird
This guy claims to be one thing but is always on the other side.
Here he is defending 2 illegals caught with 180K ROUNDS of ammo
Here he is defending 2 illegals caught with 180K ROUNDS of ammo
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:41 pm to BCreed1
He does it for the needed attention.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:45 pm to Jbird
quote:
Sound familiar?
That's different.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:45 pm to Jbird
quote:
He does it for the needed attention.
I think it's worse than that. I believe he is trying to convince people he's own the conservative side and the rule of law. Then he always takes the other side.
He's trying to sway people.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:48 pm to OceanMan
quote:
It's factually incorrect
What is, specifically?
quote:
You cannot hide your actions behind viewpoints
I think you're confusing the roles again.
The argument is the admin is punishing someone for their viewpoints.
You keep trying to put the focus on PC when it's the admin's actions that are issue. The argument isn't that PC's viewpoints "promoted" action by the government.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:49 pm to BCreed1
quote:
Here he is defending 2 illegals caught with 180K ROUNDS of ammo
Where did I post in that thread?
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:50 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
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.
Show me where in the 1A it guarantees a law firms right to have access to classified data?
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:51 pm to BCreed1
quote:
I believe he is trying to convince people he's own the conservative side and the rule of law.
Well what used to be "conservative". I'm on the "small government" side of things. That used to be the "conservative" side on here.
The MAGA era has left to redefining what "conservative" means, though.
quote:
Then he always takes the other side.
I'm taking the side opposing and criticizing more government pretty much exclusively.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Has not been proven above echo chamber ramblings.
Why does it have to be proven when the clearance is granted at the pleasure of who’s in the executive branch? Security clearance is gained and lost by those in charge of them and if you can point to where anyone is guaranteed continued clearance once gained then I’d like to see it..
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:52 pm to BCreed1
When I saw a 15 page lawfare thread, i immediately knew he’d be her defending any legal action directed at Trump- no matter how insane.
He never fails to shill
He never fails to shill
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:52 pm to TROLA
quote:
Why does it have to be proven when the clearance is granted at the pleasure of who’s in the executive branch?
Well at that point, we weren't arguing about the ruling specifically.
quote:
if you can point to where anyone is guaranteed continued clearance once gained then I’d like to see it..
Also, nobody argued this.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:53 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
When I saw a 15 page lawfare thread
Lawfare?
Trump's EO?
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
You are an arse cancer on this board. Just wanted to remind you.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:54 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
You are an arse cancer on this board. Just wanted to remind you.
I'm sorry you're so constantly offended by drilling holes in the echo chamber to allow reality to enter.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 12:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
If by holes you mean assholes and by drilling you mean cancer, than yes.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
You should stop over analyzing and start using more common sense. You are very good at continually muddying the waters as an unnecessary thought experiment.. the judge wants to obstruct the admin and is choosing the case put in front of her to accomplish her views.. it’s obvious to anyone willing to look at this objectively as are many of these overreaching rulings.. not all but plenty
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What is, specifically?
That the government action was taken because of a viewpoint, as they detailed actions that were taken.
quote:
I think you're confusing the roles again.
I’m not confused at all.
quote:
The argument is the admin is punishing someone for their viewpoints.
That’s you and the judges argument, I already acknowledged this several times.
quote:
You keep trying to put the focus on PC when it's the admin's actions that are issue. The argument isn't that PC's viewpoints "promoted" action by the government.
….
quote:
The argument is the admin is punishing someone for their viewpoints.
Um, yeah I guess I am confused.
Page 15 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News