- 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 8:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But he did give a reason, and we're discussing that within the context of a case.
Means nothing.
quote:
People said this about the Aliens and Enemies Act and scuttled when I was proven right
Again, means nothing.
1
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:57 pm to Warboo
quote:
But he did give a reason, and we're discussing that within the context of a case.
The judge based her decision on what was presented. It is laughable because she has no jurisdiction over his reason. It is simple as that.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:58 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
But they are.
No
Government violating the Constitution =/= granting a right to an individual
Posted on 5/4/25 at 9:00 pm to Warboo
quote:
You have explained what YOU are discussing now
I was replying to this
quote:
One that can be be denied or revoked for whatever reason the Executive Branch wants.
Which I did not say
quote:
which has no relevance to the issue
Untrue. The judge ruling this decision wasn't absolute is relevant to supa saying the decision is absolute.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 9:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Untrue. The judge ruling this decision wasn't absolute is relevant to supa saying the decision is absolute.
At the end of the day this argument is really silly. Trump has the authority to remove the law firms security clearance regardless of what he or his administration has said or done. You can spin it more ways than a top but it will not matter.
Posted on 5/5/25 at 4:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No one has a right to a clearance,
---
Nobody is arguing that.
---
But they are.
quote:You can claim denial of access could somehow be contrived as a Constitutional breach, and make that argument, I guess. However, here you assume it as a matter of fact, which is silly.
No
Government violating the Constitution =/= granting a right to an individual
But let's explore your jump to assignment of Constitutional breach to the Executive Branch, which btw is a habitual flaw in assumption on your part. Your arguments begin and end with the consistent mispresumption the Judicial Branch does not violate the Constitution. So let's break down the counter.
(a) The executive branch controls the clearance process entirely.
(b) Congress has oversight on how Executive agencies manage clearance.
(c) Congress has not raised issue with Trump's actions.
(d) A & B are the Constitutional considerations.
(e) To the extent the Judicial Branch desires to subvert A, and disregard B/C, therein lies the Constitutional violation.
This post was edited on 5/5/25 at 5:12 am
Posted on 5/5/25 at 7:06 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
However, here you assume it as a matter of fact, which is silly.
Naw
quote:
(a) The executive branch controls the clearance process entirely.
(b) Congress has oversight on how Executive agencies manage clearance.
(c) Congress has not raised issue with Trump's actions.
(d) A & B are the Constitutional considerations.
(e) To the extent the Judicial Branch desires to subvert A, and disregard B/C, therein lies the Constitutional violation.
This is not how our system has worked since Marbury v. Madison
Posted on 5/5/25 at 7:22 am to SlowFlowPro
the system was changed to viewpoint discrimination as the controlling law fare
Posted on 5/5/25 at 7:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
(a) The executive branch controls the clearance process entirely.
(b) Congress has oversight on how Executive agencies manage clearance.
quote:What an extraordinary and odd pretext, especially as your reference is to a case where Marshall specifically acknowledged the limited jurisdiction of SCOTUS, as defined by the Constitution. Something our current Judicial Branch repeatedly breaches.
This is not how our system has worked since Marbury v. Madison
This post was edited on 5/5/25 at 7:49 am
Posted on 5/5/25 at 8:09 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Marshall specifically acknowledged the limited jurisdiction of SCOTUS, as defined by the Constitution
As defined by English Common Law is more accurate.
quote:
Something our current Judicial Branch repeatedly breaches.
Only if you believe the incorrect paradigm you constructed, ESPECIALLY in the arena of Constitutional violation.
Congress has no direct oversight over the Executive, and has only the limited ability to change the laws at issue. However, in the realms of Constitutional violation by the Executive or the Executive exceeding the statutory authority granted by Congress, Congress has no role and no power to respond.
If the Executive does not believe it's limited by the Constitution, what could Congress even do? If you want to argue impeachment-removal (which is somewhat speculative as that violation is specifically not "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"), what binds the President to agree and follow Congress in that instance? Whatever motivation the President had to violate the Constitution could just as easily apply to impeachment and removal as well.
Posted on 5/5/25 at 8:40 am to Strannix
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."
If they're not a government employed lawfirm or contractor, why should they be allowed to have security clearances and have free access to Federal office buildings? Make that make sense.
Posted on 5/5/25 at 8:43 am to lowhound
I believe it's dealing with representation of people in scenarios involving information requiring the clearance.
Example: Trump's criminal defense lawyers for the Florida federal prosecution
LINK
Example: Trump's criminal defense lawyers for the Florida federal prosecution
LINK
quote:
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon took one of her first substantive steps Thursday in Donald Trump’s prosecution for amassing military secrets at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
In a brief order, Cannon required all attorneys in the case — for Trump as well as his longtime valet, Walt Nauta, who is charged alongside him as an alleged co-conspirator — to contact the Justice Department about obtaining security clearances. The same instructions apply to any “forthcoming” attorneys, the judge said.
Posted on 5/5/25 at 9:22 am to SlowFlowPro
SFP all up in here spewing his partisan shite again your one of those that will defend a left extremism till the day you frickin die and that’s all this shite is the left doing anything and everything to stop what’s gonna eventually happen
Posted on 5/5/25 at 9:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:That is complete total horseshite. Of course Congress has power to respond, up to and including removal of a POTUS.
However, in the realms of Constitutional violation by the Executive or the Executive exceeding the statutory authority granted by Congress, Congress has no role and no power to respond.
The fact that Congress has pretzelled itself into a completely dysfunctional, thereby weakened, body is for Congress itself to correct. But with weakness comes void of authority. With the modern Legislative Branch void comes a natural fight by the Exec and/orJudiciary to seize LB power and in-fill extra-constitutionally.
Posted on 5/5/25 at 9:44 am to udtiger
It really is a case of attacking firms who represents clients and causes he doesn’t like. That should give everyone
a reason to be concerned. There will be a Democrat in office one day.
a reason to be concerned. There will be a Democrat in office one day.
Posted on 5/5/25 at 9:49 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
What an extraordinary and odd pretext, especially as your reference is to a case where Marshall specifically acknowledged the limited jurisdiction of SCOTUS, as defined by the Constitution. Something our current Judicial Branch repeatedly breaches.
Hes a fricking moron and is googling and pasting. He has no depth in his feigned knowledge of law.
Posted on 5/5/25 at 10:00 am to VOR
quote:Your reference is to the same firms that attempted to destroy anyone willing to serve conservative clients in the 2020 aftermath???
It really is a case of attacking firms who represents clients and causes he doesn’t like. That should give everyone a reason to be concerned.
Yeah?
Excuse me for not shedding one damn tear for those scum-ridden manure sacks and embarrassments to your field.
Posted on 5/5/25 at 10:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:When Howell entertains such a limited ruling, start a thread about it. In this instance, she did nothing of the sort.
I believe it's dealing with representation of people in scenarios involving information requiring the clearance.
Posted on 5/5/25 at 11:13 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Of course Congress has power to respond, up to and including removal of a POTUS.
Do they?
Again, is this "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"?
Again, assuming the answer to above is "Yes", if the President is already ignoring the Constitution, why would he start following it with the impeachment-removal process?
I already posted that in the post to which you replied.
quote:
If the Executive does not believe it's limited by the Constitution, what could Congress even do? If you want to argue impeachment-removal (which is somewhat speculative as that violation is specifically not "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"), what binds the President to agree and follow Congress in that instance? Whatever motivation the President had to violate the Constitution could just as easily apply to impeachment and removal as well.
Posted on 5/5/25 at 11:13 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
When Howell entertains such a limited ruling, start a thread about it. In this instance, she did nothing of the sort.
Someone asked a question and I gave an answer with an example
Page 21 of 22
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News