- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 1:05 pm to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:05 pm to Vacherie Saint
And always does
1
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:08 pm to TROLA
quote:
You should stop over analyzing and start using more common sense.
That's the crutch of dumb people and people who are losing arguments.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:10 pm to OceanMan
quote:
That the government action was taken because of a viewpoint,
That's not been proven one way or another and is a central part of the litigation.
quote:
Um, yeah I guess I am confused.
Did you mean to use prompted instead of promoted? Was that a typo/
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:10 pm to BCreed1
quote:
And always does
Naw.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm on the "small government" side of things.
No you aren't. The president is revoking a security clearance for individuals of a firm, that do not work for the government, and you are supporting action taken by a district judge to block a power that a president should clearly have.
You also have a history of supporting prosecutions from numerous districts and levels of court that have gone absolutely nowhere. That is not "small" government.
The entire legal industry in its current state cannot coexist with "small" government. It's laughable to suggest otherwise.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
sense. That's the crutch of dumb people and people who are losing arguments.
Well then frick off. Your act is tired and as someone who has attempted to see your viewpoint.. no more.. you act like a spoiled child who feels intellectually superior to everyone else.. but alas.. you aren’t
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:17 pm to Strannix
Judge Beryl Howell
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Did you mean to use prompted instead of promoted? Was that a typo/
What I wrote
quote:
On the basis that it was their "viewpoints" that prompted action by the government, rather than their actions, as the EO states.
I'm not sure why this distinction even matters
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:25 pm to OceanMan
quote:
No you aren't.
I 100% am
quote:
The president is revoking a security clearance for individuals of a firm, that do not work for the government, and you are supporting action taken by a district judge to block a power that a president should clearly have.
a. I haven't really come down on it one way or another personally
b. If the action violates the limitations of the 1A, then, why would I be opposed to a court invalidating this expansion of government powers beyond Constitutional limits? Desiring less government is ensuring government remains within its constitutional limits.
quote:
You also have a history of supporting prosecutions from numerous districts and levels of court that have gone absolutely nowhere. That is not "small" government.
Again, this is more confusion in me explaining a legal process and my personal opinion on the process.
It's also a learning moment. If you want to see the fruition of this, see the hypocrisy in the "texas bond" thread on page 1.
quote:
The entire legal industry in its current state cannot coexist with "small" government.
In the sense that we need fewer laws and government authority needs to be constrained? Sure.
Even then, this unwinding has to be done properly and gradually or else we risk shock to the system which increases the chance for chaos which increase the chance for authoritarianism.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:28 pm to OceanMan
quote:
I'm not sure why this distinction even matters
For whatever reason I read it as promoted, which is very different then prompted. That's why my response used "promoted"
quote:
I'm not sure why this distinction even matters
Promotion denotes participation (in this case by PC)
Prompted denotes unilateral response (in this case, by the government)
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:30 pm to dgnx6
quote:
the Clinton’s lawyers hate poor people?
Who is the pro bono legal work for? I'll give you a hint it's not poor people who can't afford a lawyer....
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
I've just read through the thread, and I must admit to not have all that much knowledge of the actual events being discussed.
That said, it appears that you are saying that the president has the authority to revoke security clearance without giving a reason, but if he does give a reason it can't be because he doesn't like their political leanings as that would be in violation the 1st Amendment.
And in this case the president doesn't like their political leanings because this firm was involved in fabricating falsehoods in order to sway voters opinions away from the president during a presidential campaign.
And further, that once he was in office, this particular firm was not implicated in using the above falsehoods in an effort to actually remove him from office.
Therefore, the judge does not see any reason supplied by the president to remove their security clearance beyond the fact that they used fabricated 'evidence' against him in a campaign.
...and all of this could've been avoided if the president had simply terminated the firm's security clearance without comment?
Do I have your position stated clearly enough?
That said, it appears that you are saying that the president has the authority to revoke security clearance without giving a reason, but if he does give a reason it can't be because he doesn't like their political leanings as that would be in violation the 1st Amendment.
And in this case the president doesn't like their political leanings because this firm was involved in fabricating falsehoods in order to sway voters opinions away from the president during a presidential campaign.
And further, that once he was in office, this particular firm was not implicated in using the above falsehoods in an effort to actually remove him from office.
Therefore, the judge does not see any reason supplied by the president to remove their security clearance beyond the fact that they used fabricated 'evidence' against him in a campaign.
...and all of this could've been avoided if the president had simply terminated the firm's security clearance without comment?
Do I have your position stated clearly enough?
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I 100% am
not really
quote:
If the action violates the limitations of the 1A
It does not
quote:
Again, this is more confusion in me explaining a legal process and my personal opinion on the process.
No it isn't. You are crawfishing like a mf'r right now.
quote:
It's also a learning moment. If you want to see the fruition of this, see the hypocrisy in the "texas bond" thread on page 1
have you ever had any "learning moments"?
quote:
Even then, this unwinding has to be done properly and gradually or else we risk shock to the system which increases the chance for chaos which increase the chance for authoritarianism.
Sounds great, let's start now and do it without lawyers involved
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
You will never accuse me of being a diehard Trump apologist. He steps in his own crap more than anyone I have ever seen.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
For whatever reason I read it as promoted, which is very different then prompted. That's why my response used "promoted"
How about you stop telling people they are confused when you are the one that is confused?
Again, your main goal is to keep things "focused" - you said so yourself several times. Maybe stop and read what people write, and understand their point, before deciding who is focused and who isn't
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:40 pm to OceanMan
quote:
It does not
quote:
If
quote:
No it isn't. You are crawfishing like a mf'r right now.
Nope. This is the same meme all the time.
I explain legal issues without giving a personal opinion.
MAGA melts because it's not what the echo chamber said.
Someone claims I'm "defending" something involving the case.
I explain the above paradigm.
They accuse me of crawfishing due to their own errors.
quote:
have you ever had any "learning moments"?
Sure. That + my intelligence is where I got today.
Someone just yesterday said I was a "god of trivia" actually (true story).
You don't get that way by just existing.
quote:
Sounds great, let's start now and do it without lawyers involved
Then you get the idiocy we see ITT and others trying to discuss legal issues and reverting to "common sense" when they reach their intellectual/logical limit.
That will lead to its own chaos and the accompanying bad times
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:41 pm to OceanMan
quote:
Again, your main goal is to keep things "focused"
Nope, his main goal is to keep the thread going, some kind of weird lawyer exercise. He is a professional time waster, you won't win.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:41 pm to OceanMan
quote:
How about you stop telling people they are confused when you are the one that is confused?
Misunderstanding a concept =/= misreading a word (Which I admitted to)
Posted on 5/3/25 at 2:02 pm to Strannix
Ignore the judge, a security clearance is not a right.
Or better, declassify everything on every politician and any judge, the release Epstein's client list.
Or better, declassify everything on every politician and any judge, the release Epstein's client list.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 2:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
Did you breastfeed until you were 8?
Page 16 of 22
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News