- 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 8:56 am to udtiger
Posted on 5/3/25 at 8:56 am to udtiger
quote:
The Executive has unfettered discretion in this regard.
Incorrect
If those denied can prove they were denied for viewpoint discrimination, then the EO is unconstitutional.
quote:
The granting, withholding and revoking of a clearance is by its nature discriminatory and arbitrary.
But not all discrimination is legal. You know this.
Viewpoint-based discrimination, ESPECIALLY political viewpoints, are not a legal method of discrimination.
2
Posted on 5/3/25 at 8:57 am to GumboPot
quote:
So Trump is forced to hire SFP law firm if Judge Beryl Howell says so?
Nope. You're changing the facts.
Trump admin cannot ban SFP from getting a security clearance because of my political viewpoints/past arguments. No force is involved.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 8:58 am to Strannix
So , some of you are fine with a president targeting private law firms
that he doesn’t like? Would you feel the same if a Democrat did the same thing?
No matter how much you’ve tried to convince yourself otherwise, there will be a Democrat in the White House( as early as 2028, perhaps)
that he doesn’t like? Would you feel the same if a Democrat did the same thing?
No matter how much you’ve tried to convince yourself otherwise, there will be a Democrat in the White House( as early as 2028, perhaps)
Posted on 5/3/25 at 8:58 am to GumboPot
quote:
Why can’t the Trump WH pick and choose what law firms he wants to represent the WH?
That is NOT at issue.
The court is arguably correct relative to barring them from federal buildings (which would include courthouses - making it impossible for them to serve their clients).
Similarly, requiring disclosure of retainer agreements where they are representing clients against the government is also a potential issue.
Again, nothing to do with the clearance issue.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 8:59 am to VOR
quote:Didn't your stupid arse promise Kamala wins yuge?
No matter how much you’ve tried to convince yourself otherwise, there will be a Democrat in the White House( as early as 2028, perhaps)
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
mp EO - Perkins Coieby SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Executive has unfettered discretion in this regard.
Incorrect
If those denied can prove they were denied for viewpoint discrimination, then the EO is unconstitutional.
quote:
The granting, withholding and revoking of a clearance is by its nature discriminatory and arbitrary.
But not all discrimination is legal. You know this.
Viewpoint-based discrimination, ESPECIALLY political viewpoints, are not a legal method of discrimination
You are so ridiculously wrong.
For you to be correct would mean there is a RIGHT to a security clearance.
There isn't.
There never has been.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:00 am to SlowFlowPro
Let’s stop pretending here.
Trump wants to remove Perkins Coie security clearances to hinder their Lawfare tactics against Trump and Judge Howell want them to have security clearances so the Lawfare can continue.
Trump wants to remove Perkins Coie security clearances to hinder their Lawfare tactics against Trump and Judge Howell want them to have security clearances so the Lawfare can continue.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:01 am to udtiger
quote:
For you to be correct would mean there is a RIGHT to a security clearance.
Nope. Not at all.
quote:
There isn't.
There never has been.
You're responding to a strawman you created.
Nobody argued there is a right to a security clearance.
The argument is you can't deny a security clearance for viewpoint discrimination.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:02 am to GumboPot
quote:
Let’s stop pretending here.
quote:
Trump wants to remove Perkins Coie security clearances to hinder their Lawfare tactics against Trump
That in of itself may venture into viewpoint discrimination territory.
So taking your non-pretending argument at face value may display the exact illegality at issue.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nobody argued there is a right to a security clearance.
The argument is you can't deny a security clearance for viewpoint discrimination.
Read that again.
R
E
A
L
S
L
O
W
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:03 am to SlowFlowPro
You guys are full of it. The last administration is the group that destroyed view point discrimination constraints by targeting catholics, parents at school board meetings, fisa, lgbtq dissidents , Fauchi covid mandates etc. etc .etc.
Precedence sez Perkins Code needs to suck it up and comply with the legal rules they created.
Precedence sez Perkins Code needs to suck it up and comply with the legal rules they created.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:03 am to VOR
quote:
So , some of you are fine with a president targeting private law firms
and you are fine with bitch judges who absolutely go insane when someone they do not like gets a judgement against a racist cop who murdered their relative
We are supposed to believe ANYTHING that crazy bitch says is "legal":
All these fricking judges doing this coordinated anti-Trump bullshite are EXACTLY like her. They just control themselves better.
The DEI idiot who is too much for the wise Latina is the encapsulation of what these judges are.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:03 am to Trevaylin
quote:No such thing as lawfare signed Slow Fanni Pro
You guys are full of it. The last administration is the group that destroyed view point discrimination constraints by targeting catholics, parents at school board meetings, fisa, lgbtq dissidents , Fauchi covid mandates etc. etc .etc.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That in of itself may venture into viewpoint discrimination territory.
So if I find out SFP law firm that works for my company and I find out you are selling secrets to my competitor I can’t fire you and remove you from the premises?
Makes no sense.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:09 am to udtiger
quote:
Read that again.
R
E
A
L
S
L
O
W
I did. You're changing what's being argued to create a straw man.
There all all sorts of legal discriminatory methods available to the admin to deny a security clearance, as I already told you. That denotes it is in no way a right.
However, not all methods of discrimination are legal, and you know this.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:09 am to Jbird
quote:
No such thing as lawfare signed Slow Fanni Pro
This is a very bad argument to use the L-word, but I knew you couldn't resist
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:10 am to SlowFlowPro
So once a security clearance is issued does it stay forever?
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:12 am to GumboPot
quote:
So if I find out SFP law firm that works for my company and I find out you are selling secrets to my competitor I can’t fire you and remove you from the premises?
What does this have to do with viewpoint discrimination?
Your company is not the government. It's a non-neutral party opposed to the government (which legally is neutral)
Your analogy (stealing secrets) is not appropriate for the discussion, as well.
If the admin had evidence these firms stole and sold national secrets, that would be a legal method of discrimination. Is that what the EO alleges? To which foreign country are they accused of transmitting this information?
Or, are you making this mistake of viewing a political party/actor as "a competitor" of the government? I think that's the issue, but you can clarify.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:12 am to Jbird
quote:
So once a security clearance is issued does it stay forever?
Nope. Nobody is arguing that it does, either.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Well if that's the case why are these lawyers still holding security clearances if they have performed the task they were hired to do, there job is over, revoke the clearance.
Nope. Nobody is arguing that it does, either.
Page 2 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News