re: Trump Admin tells Boasberg they are no longer playing his game

I get greenwalds point but at the same time you have numerous highly ridiculous decisions being handed down. And one where a class was certified withoit briefing or hearing. The sheer volume of this makes it arguably categorically different.


Not sure if there is a good solution though.

quote:

---

The ruling describes that too. At some point you have to just admit you were wrong…not a major issue. It’s a nuanced part of the ruling. Nobody will fault you for being wrong. But to continue to deny the plain language of the ruling is silly.

---

You haven’t read the ruling. That’s extremely clear.

Again, what does “properly invoked” mean?

If that’s what judges can determine? what does it mean that the state secret privilege is properly invoked?

quote:

---

You haven’t read the ruling. That’s extremely clear.

---

Except I used the exact words from the ruling.

quote:

---

Again, what does “properly invoked” mean?

---

I can only cite the exact wording so many times.

That Lurch looking mfer can stick his Johnson in a meatgrinder.

quote:

---

State secrets are the prerogative of the executive branch, aren't they? The judicial branch can't rule on whether or not something is a state secret, because they would then know what the state secret is

---

From Reynolds:

quote:

---

The Government contends, as we have stated, that it is within the sole province of the Secretary of the Air Force to determine whether any privileged material is contained in the documents and that his determination of this question must be accepted by the district court without any independent consideration of the matter by it. We cannot accede to this proposition. On the contrary we are satisfied that a claim of privilege against disclosing evidence relevant to the issues in a pending law suit involves a justiciable question, traditionally within the competence of the courts, which is to be determined in accordance with the appropriate rules of evidence, upon the submission of the documents in question to the judge for his examination in camera. Such examination must obviously be ex parte and in camera if the privilege is not to be lost in its assertion. But to hold that the head of an executive department of the Government in a suit to which the United States is a party may conclusively determine the Government's claim of privilege is to abdicate the judicial function and permit the executive branch of the Government to infringe the independent province of the judiciary as laid down by the Constitution.

---

LINK

quote:

---

They do to anyone that can understand them. Again…I can’t understand it for you.

---

You have continued to report 1 quote, that does not define what “properly invoked” means. As I said before it’s very clear you haven’t read the case.

Our argument is over whether a court can determine if information is a state secret or not.

You cannot dispute that the State Secret Privilege protects state secrets from disclosure. That’s what it is.

You cannot dispute that proper invocation of the privilege means the information the government is trying to withhold is a state secret.

You cannot dispute that judges can determine that the that the privilege does not apply to the information ie it was not properly invoked.

If the privilege protects state secrets and the judge can determine the privilege doesn’t apply, then the judge can determine that information is not a state secret.

quote:

---

You have continued to report 1 quote, that does not define what “properly invoked” means. As I said before it’s very clear you haven’t read the case.

---

That 1 quote is the standard per the Supreme Court. What else do you need? The standard is the standard. Your inability to understand it is not my problem.

quote:

---

If the privilege protects state secrets and the judge can determine the privilege doesn’t apply, then the judge can determine that information is not a state secret.

---

You were correct until this sentence. You’re going a step too far. Per the clear language of the Supreme Court. The judge determines if the privilege was properly invoked given the circumstances. It does not state that the court is determining whether it is a state secret or not.

quote:

---

That 1 quote is the standard per the Supreme Court. What else do you need? The standard is the standard. Your inability to understand it is not my problem.

---

if we were talking about the standard that would be great. but we aren’t arguing over the standard. we’re arguing over whether they can determine if information is in fact a state secret or not.

quote:

---

You were correct until this sentence. You’re going a step too far. Per the clear language of the Supreme Court. The judge determines if the privilege was properly invoked given the circumstances. It does not state that the court is determining whether it is a state secret or not.

---

You keep saying “properly invoked”

and then you say the standard for which the judge should determine if the privilege was “properly invoked”

but you refuse to define “properly invoked”

The privilege is properly invoked when the judge determines it protect a state secret.

How many responses are you going to make without actually saying anything?

0 legal analysis.

you’re quoting something that doesn’t answer the question.

you’re ignoring the rest of the decision and all other case law and basic common sense.

You also are clearly incapable of taking this standard and applying it to the privilege.