Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

So, this was kind of interesting.  Reportage on the most recent hearing in the Perkins Coie case.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-reporter-s-notes-of-the-april-23-perkins-coie-hearing

Recall that the government was enjoined from enforcing the EO against Perkins.  Usually the next step would be to formalize that TRO into a preliminary injunction pending trial.  

In this case, Perkins moved for summary judgment and the government moved to dismiss the complaint.  I haven't read the document, but it appears the motion to dismiss was based entirely on some notion that the court was without power to adjudicate this executive action.

The government's attorney was one Richard Lawson, a former Florida DAG (dya like dags?) and Bondi cuck, now a US DAG.  It's a name I think you'll be hearing a lot of in court cases.

He didn't seem to be much of an asshole (compared to Drew Ensign), but was curiously uninformed about the administration's motivations and actual execution of the EO against Perkins.  The problem for him is that is exactly the kind of evidence one needs to avoid summary judgment.

So, that Judge Howell was going to rule against the government seemed a foregone conclusion.  A central question to Howell seemed to be that if she ruled that the EO was invalid, was an injunction even necessary against its enforcement.  

So, a couple of the key takes:  the government didn't try very hard to defend the indefensible.  It seems that a lot of their defense is a very Trumpian, "I have the power to do this and you can't stop me" without much analysis or citation of precedent.  In other words, some pretty low-quality advocacy.  The other thing Lawson tried to argue is that "this isn't as bad as it looks," that is, interpretations of starkly worded portions of the order represent a more "traditional" exercise of executive power.  Stuff like "security clearances are always subject to review and revocation," so the security clearance part is just business as usual.  And the exclusion from government buildings and services really means exclusion from SCIFs, not courthouses and government transaction websites like EDGAR, or uspto.gov.

But without evidence of any of that, the order pretty much speaks for itself and its intemperate tone dooms it to invalidity.

One fun note, Howell dinged Lawson repeatedly on how the settlements with other firms basically address none of the alleged national security concerns of the order, instead settling just for free legal services for Trump causes.

So, like a lot of shit Trump, the bully quietly backs down once his bullshit is called.

Also, I saw a paywalled article that a lot of corporate IP departments are expressing dismay at the capitulating firms, ie not gonna hire em anymore.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
Posted
So, this was kind of interesting.  Reportage on the most recent hearing in the Perkins Coie case.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-reporter-s-notes-of-the-april-23-perkins-coie-hearing
Recall that the government was enjoined from enforcing the EO against Perkins.  Usually the next step would be to formalize that TRO into a preliminary injunction pending trial.  
In this case, Perkins moved for summary judgment and the government moved to dismiss the complaint.  I haven't read the document, but it appears the motion to dismiss was based entirely on some notion that the court was without power to adjudicate this executive action.
The government's attorney was one Richard Lawson, a former Florida DAG (dya like dags?) and Bondi cuck, now a US DAG.  It's a name I think you'll be hearing a lot of in court cases.
He didn't seem to be much of an asshole (compared to Drew Ensign), but was curiously uninformed about the administration's motivations and actual execution of the EO against Perkins.  The problem for him is that is exactly the kind of evidence one needs to avoid summary judgment.
So, that Judge Howell was going to rule against the government seemed a foregone conclusion.  A central question to Howell seemed to be that if she ruled that the EO was invalid, was an injunction even necessary against its enforcement.  
So, a couple of the key takes:  the government didn't try very hard to defend the indefensible.  It seems that a lot of their defense is a very Trumpian, "I have the power to do this and you can't stop me" without much analysis or citation of precedent.  In other words, some pretty low-quality advocacy.  The other thing Lawson tried to argue is that "this isn't as bad as it looks," that is, interpretations of starkly worded portions of the order represent a more "traditional" exercise of executive power.  Stuff like "security clearances are always subject to review and revocation," so the security clearance part is just business as usual.  And the exclusion from government buildings and services really means exclusion from SCIFs, not courthouses and government transaction websites like EDGAR, or uspto.gov.
But without evidence of any of that, the order pretty much speaks for itself and its intemperate tone dooms it to invalidity.
One fun note, Howell dinged Lawson repeatedly on how the settlements with other firms basically address none of the alleged national security concerns of the order, instead settling just for free legal services for Trump causes.
So, like a lot of shit Trump, the bully quietly backs down once his bullshit is called.
Also, I saw a paywalled article that a lot of corporate IP departments are expressing dismay at the capitulating firms, ie not gonna hire em anymore.

“You won’t even stand up for yourself, why would I trust you to stand up for me?”
That’s an easy client call.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


“You won’t even stand up for yourself, why would I trust you to stand up for me?”
That’s an easy client call.

It is.  But so many seem so cowed by the administration.

The good news is that even though the P2025 crowd is in full effect in their malevolent agenda, the competence in execution may actually be worse than Trump I.

Posted
It is.  But so many seem so cowed by the administration.
The good news is that even though the P2025 crowd is in full effect in their malevolent agenda, the competence in execution may actually be worse than Trump I.

On a parallel note, I’m going to be sending both a contribution to Harvard’s endowment and a personal note to the Board of Regents. I’d suggest that this moment in history may be WHY Harvard was/should have been created in the first place. It predates the Republic. It helped form it. Now, it has to stand and fight for it. If they HADN’T stepped up for this fight, then they would have surrendered whatever institutional credibility they had.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


On a parallel note, I’m going to be sending both a contribution to Harvard’s endowment and a personal note to the Board of Regents. I’d suggest that this moment in history may be WHY Harvard was/should have been created in the first place. It predates the Republic. It helped form it. Now, it has to stand and fight for it. If they HADN’T stepped up for this fight, then they would have surrendered whatever institutional credibility they had.

And, I guess if you go back historically, it explains why Kings College (Columbia) capitulated.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

A fucking 2 year old citizen got deported along with mom, without due process, despite dad trying to stop it. 

Eight years from now when the case has worked its way through the system multiple times, the dad will look back on all this and laugh.

Posted
1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

because he's the antichrist?

Same reason he kept his hand off the bible while being sworn in as president. Guess he didn't want it to catch on fire. 

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...