- 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 5/4/25 at 6:33 pm to ManBearSharkReb
Posted on 5/4/25 at 6:33 pm to ManBearSharkReb
quote:
SlowProHomo has been arguing for 12 hours that the judiciary has the authority to grant security clearances
I have not.
quote:
which is not an authority granted to the judicial branch under the constitution.
You are correct, but the flaw above is the issue.
quote:
Colluding with a foreign spy to fabricate a dossier as an impetus to overthrow a duly elected president is grounds for terminating Perkins Coie’s security clearance at a minimum. And it could be argued that an attempted coup amounts to treason.
Histrionics
0
Posted on 5/4/25 at 6:34 pm to Oizers
quote:
Do you even ABA Formal Opinion 491 bro?
Not applicable.
Again, the criminal acts were by the DOJ. PC didn't deal with the DOJ directly.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 6:35 pm to supatigah
quote:
No one has a right to a clearance,
Nobody is arguing that.
quote:
One that can be be denied or revoked for whatever reason the Executive Branch wants.
I don't think this is entirely accurate.
For instance, an easier distinction.
The Executive could not deny a security clearance due to someone's race. We all agree on that, correct?
They couldn't limit security clearances to men. We all agree on that, correct?
Posted on 5/4/25 at 6:40 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
Absolutely. This EO is clearly viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the First Amendment.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 6:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
So confident your boys PC were clean.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 6:52 pm to Jbird
quote:
So confident your boys PC were clean.
I've been asking for information for pages/days now.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 7:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
How does the primary Dem Legal company with a sack of top secret clearance carrying lawyers overlook the payment being coded legal advice?
Posted on 5/4/25 at 7:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Executive could not deny a security clearance due to someone's race. We all agree on that, correct? They couldn't limit security clearances to men. We all agree on that, correct?
What does race or gender have to do with it? The executive branch can revoke security clearance for no reason at all. They have that power. You are arguing about a strawman that you and the judge have created. Good luck.
This post was edited on 5/4/25 at 7:20 pm
Posted on 5/4/25 at 7:21 pm to Warboo
quote:
What does race or gender have to do with it? T
He made a statement in absolute terms.
I'm giving some exceptions that I would hope wouldn't be too contentious.
Once we agree there are exceptions, then we can discard the absolutist stance and get into other limitations (which may include viewpoint discrimination).
Posted on 5/4/25 at 7:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He made a statement in absolute terms. I'm giving some exceptions that I would hope wouldn't be too contentious. Once we agree there are exceptions, then we can discard the absolutist stance and get into other limitations (which may include viewpoint discrimination).
There are no limitations. When asked why….we do not trust them….why do you not trust them? It is a on going investigation and we will not discuss on going investigations. Mic drop and exit court room stage left. Viewpoint discrimination has no power in this argument. You know it and so do I.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 7:29 pm to Warboo
quote:
There are no limitations.
This is what we're testing.
So you think that a stated policy that only men can get security clearances would pass judicial scrutiny?
Posted on 5/4/25 at 7:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So you think that a stated policy that only men can get security clearances would pass judicial scrutiny?
Has know relevance to what the judge decided.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 7:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Executive could not deny a security clearance due to someone's race
quote:
They couldn't limit security clearances to men.
Nice straw man argument, retard.
The commander in chief has the authority to grant or revoke any security clearance as he sees fit and is not required to give an explanation to any inferior district court judge.
An inferior court judge certainly has no authority to impede the commander in chief’s ability to revoke a security clearance either.
This will get absolutely bitch slapped by the Supreme Court and you will be no where to be found when it does.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:09 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
based on the viewpoint
It's not a viewpoint baw. It's election fraud. And like twenty other kinds of fraud.
Gotta love the dimwits that try to hide gross malfeasance behind constitutional rights...
"BUT YOU CANT PROSECUTE ME FOR MASS MURDERS THATS A VIOLATION OF MY FREE SPEECH, CUZ I SAID I WANNA KILL PEOPLE BEFORE I DID IT. FREE SPEECH DDUDEZ....."
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Executive could not deny a security clearance due to someone's race. We all agree on that, correct?
does their race make them untrustworthy with State secrets? why?
quote:
They couldn't limit security clearances to men. We all agree on that, correct?
does their gender make them untrustworthy with State secrets? why?
if I am the keeper of the info in the Executive and I deem you untrustworthy then I dont have to give you access to the information
sue all you want, you won’t win
this is a pretty straight forward process and transaction to extend status and access to protected information controlled by the Executive
simple discrimination is not a disqualifier when there are so many plausible reasons to disqualify anyone or anything as “untrustworthy”
especially a DC Law Firm
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:21 pm to Warboo
quote:
Has know relevance to what the judge decided.
I explained what we're discussing now. It's in response to the absolutism being espoused.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:23 pm to ManBearSharkReb
quote:
Nice straw man argument, retard.
That's not a straw man. I'm nor arguing that's someone's argument (which would be a strawman).
quote:
The commander in chief has the authority to grant or revoke any security clearance as he sees fit and is not required to give an explanation to any inferior district court judge.
But he did give a reason, and we're discussing that within the context of a case.
quote:
This will get absolutely bitch slapped by the Supreme Court and you will be no where to be found when it does.
People said this about the Aliens and Enemies Act and scuttled when I was proven right
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:24 pm to supatigah
quote:
does their race make them untrustworthy with State secrets? why?
That's a very good question
quote:
does their gender make them untrustworthy with State secrets? why?
Again, a good question
quote:
simple discrimination is not a disqualifier when there are so many plausible reasons to disqualify anyone or anything as “untrustworthy”
But we have his stated reason. The comparable scenarios involve that, too.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:But they are.
No one has a right to a clearance,
---
Nobody is arguing that.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Has know relevance to what the judge decided.
quote:
I explained what we're discussing now. It's in response to the absolutism being espoused.
You have explained what YOU are discussing now which has no relevance to the issue or how the black robe rules. Back to topic please.
Page 20 of 22
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News