Judge Amir Ali, a Biden GIft That Keeps on Giving, Has Done It Again

[otto105]

What law?

The whistleblower protections.

Why do you not know that?

 

[struth]

The ruling wasn’t legislation from the bench fuckup.

But you can make that statement about the Supreme Court justices.

Oh what statute did he say was broken?

 

[Hollie]

Judges are the law. Did you miss out on civics classes in your one-roomer?!

Judges are not the law, retard.

 

[struth]

The whistleblower protections.

Why do you not know that?

That’s not mentioned in post

The post says the judge ruled it may have violate the Constitutional protection on Bill of Attainders

Did you not read it?

So my next question is how can an executive action violate that?

 

[otto105]

Oh what statute did he say was broken?

Do your own homework.

The judge did his and he is the subject matter expert. Can you claim same level of knowledge of the law?

If not, fuckup.

 

[otto105]

That’s not mentioned in post

The post says the judge ruled it may have violate the Constitutional protection on Bill of Attainders

Did you not read it?

So my next question is how can an executive action violate that?

Stop being a stooge of the wingnut media false narrative.

Judge blocks Trump effort to strip security clearance from attorney who represented whistleblowers

 

[struth]

Do your own homework.

The judge did his and he is the subject matter expert. Can you claim same level of knowledge of the law?

If not, fuckup.

Yes I can.

 

[struth]

Stop being a stooge of the wingnut media false narrative.

Judge blocks Trump effort to strip security clearance from attorney who represented whistleblowers

Yes and nowhere does he say anything in the memo opinion about the whistleblower stat, since the plaintiff was not a whistleblower

He does say,but violate the constitutional protection I mentioned. Did you read the opinion? Clearly not

 

[excalibur]

He ruled using the law.

You as a weak minded sycophant want him to rule based on what the president wants.

Why is that fuckup.

Nope. He made up law. Such as claiming this may violate the bill of attainder clause. Duh!

SCOTUS has ruled years ago that a President can remove security clearances whenever he wishes, and no case can be brought on the merits.

This will be tossed, as it should be.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Department of the Navy v. Egan (1988) established that security clearance determinations are largely within the purview of the executive branch, limiting judicial review.​

The D.C. Circuit said in 2024:

While the court reaffirmed that challenges directly tied to the revocation of a security clearance remain non-justiciable—as clarified in Lee v. Garland, No. 20-5221, 2024 WL 4596664 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 2024)​

There is no First Amendment right to have a security clearance or to keep one. And laughably, this "judge" also brought up a bill of attainder as well. Now, a bill of attainder is an act of a legislature, not a Pesident's order.

 

[otto105]

Yes I can.

How?

 

[otto105]

Yes and nowhere does he say anything in the memo opinion about the whistleblower stat, since the plaintiff was not a whistleblower

He does say,but violate the constitutional protection I mentioned. Did you read the opinion? Clearly not

Vindictive retribution.

Where in the constitution can I find that it is okay for a president.

 

[struth]

How?

I just did.

I’m smart enough to know what a bill of attainder is

 

[otto105]

Nope. He made up law. Such as claiming this may violate the bill of attainder clause. Duh!

SCOTUS has ruled years ago that a President can remove security clearances whenever he wishes, and no case can be brought on the merits.

This will be tossed, as it should be.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Department of the Navy v. Egan (1988) established that security clearance determinations are largely within the purview of the executive branch, limiting judicial review.​

The D.C. Circuit said in 2024:

While the court reaffirmed that challenges directly tied to the revocation of a security clearance remain non-justiciable—as clarified in Lee v. Garland, No. 20-5221, 2024 WL 4596664 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 2024)​

There is no First Amendment right to have a security clearance or to keep one. And laughably, this "judge" also brought up a bill of attainder as well. Now, a bill of attainder is an act of a legislature, not a Pesident's order.

Hilarious


So, you lika the king idea.

 

[badbob85037]

Don't be an ass. Mark S. Zaid has had security clearance and updates for 20 years, never charged with a single breach of discussions or handling of classified information. This was just a retribution move on the part of the President and DNI, for him representing whistleblowers.

Just more proof of how these democrats roll.

 

[struth]

Vindictive retribution.

Where in the constitution can I find that it is okay for a president.

Well, i am not sure that’s what is happening here…but I don’t see anywhere in the constitution that says a president can’t revoke a security clearance for that reason

In fact I see where all executive power vest in him

 

[otto105]

I just did.

I’m smart enough to know what a bill of attainder is

Hilarious

 

[otto105]

Well, i am not sure that’s what is happening here…but I don’t see anywhere in the constitution that says a president can’t revoke a security clearance for that reason

In fact I see where all executive power vest in him

A president can’t bypass normal procedures for vindictive retribution against selective people under whistleblower protection.

The president used a memorandum outside of the law.

 

[otto105]

Well, i am not sure that’s what is happening here…but I don’t see anywhere in the constitution that says a president can’t revoke a security clearance for that reason

In fact I see where all executive power vest in him

So, you lika the king.

 

[struth]

Hilarious

No it’s true. Do you?

 

[struth]

So, you lika the king.

No. A king makes law, and says what is law, they don’t just have executive powers

Check out the first line of art 2 sect 1 of the US Constitution and tell us where all executive power vest…I’ll wait